Ontological Flashcards
Argument based on reason
Ontological
Ontological
Study of being
Is ontonyological as tries to prove god exists based on who he is
Deals with nature of being
Priori as yeses reasoning prior to experience
Logical deduction to try to prove existence of god
Deductive = aims to prove without questioning existence of god
If you understnd definition of god you understnad he exists
Anslerm monk in France provided motivation for life in prayer
1st formulation
The starting point is the fool of the Psalms.
“ the fool says in his heart there is no god”
Anselm’s point is that atheists know what they are rejecting - they understand God because they have to understand God to say he doesn’t exist. Therefore atheists have a common understanding with theists of God in their minds.
Anselm’s next point is about painter. A painter imagines their painting and so it exists in his or her mind. Once the painting is painted it exists both in the painter’s understanding and in reality. So, Anselm separates two different types of existence - existence in the mind and existence in reality.
Continuued
• The definition of God = which nothing greater can be thought of God is the greatest possible being.
• atheist understands this as well as believer
• so God exists in everyone’s mind.
• But definition of God = he is the greatest possible being.
• It is greater to exist in reality than just in mind (the painting that exists in reality is fully understood only once it is completed).
So, because everyone understands who God is he can’t just exist in the mind alone because then there would be a greater being that exists (and God is the greatest!) - and that’s a contradiction.
So, God must exist both in the mind and in reality, which means thatGod exists.
2nd formulation
Anselm talks about beings that one can imagine not existing (contingent beings) +beings that cannot not exist (necessary beings). Necessary beings are better than contingent beings. So, if God were a contingent being thenwouldn’t be the greatest possible being - means that God must be a necessary being. If God is a necessary being then God cannot not exist - which means God exists.
Anselm finishes this section like this: quote
So truly, therefore, do you exist, O Lord, my God, that you cannot be conceived not to exist; and rightly. For, if a mind could conceive of a being better than you, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd. And, indeed, whatever else there is, except you alone, can be conceived not to exist. To you alone, therefore, it belongs to exist more truly than all other beings, and hence in a higher degree than all others. For, whatever else exists does not exist so truly, and hence in a less degree it belongs to it to exist. Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God, since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is dull and a fool?
Guanilo vs anselm
Gaunilo = monk lived at the same time as Anselm. believed in God, but questioned Anselm’s approach.
The perfect island
He says imagine the greatest conceivable, but lost, island somewhere in the ocean. It has all ‘riches and delicacies’ more so than any other island. • If you were told about that island you would be able to imagine it - it would exist in your mind.
• Suppose you were then told that there could be no doubt that this island exists because logically it must be so as it is more excellent to exist in reality than just in the mind.
• You would not feel that anyone had proven anything to you because nobody had shown you that its existence was there in the first place.
Thus, Gaunilo suggests that the internal logic that Anselm had used was equally false.
other points
It’s completely normal for us to have imaginary ideas in our minds.
- Sometimes, we might believe something unreal that someone tells us, but just believing it doesn’t make it real. This is similar to gossip: believing it doesn’t make it true.
- The painter analogy falls short because there’s a significant difference between the initial concept and the final painting.
- We don’t all share a common understanding of God; the idea of a being greater than all others can vary from person to person.
- Descriptions alone can never fully convey understanding. Different people will imagine different things when they hear the same words.
- You can’t define something into existence.
- While we are fully aware of our own existence, we can also think about our non-existence. The same applies to God: we can imagine both God’s existence and non-existence.
Anselms reply
Anselm responded to Gaunilo by reiterating his initial definition of God as the only being that cannot possibly not exist.
- explained that once you conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be thought, you have already placed it in your mind, and this being is what we call God.
- It becomes contradictory to say that the greatest possible being might not exist. Anselm emphasized that God is a unique case.
- accused Gaunilo of misapplying his logic. Anselm clarified that he was discussing God, a necessary being, not any random object. Unlike a contingent thing such as an island, God is the greatest possible being.
- defended his painter analogy by stating that it showes the consistency of his reasoning. He was not equating the painter and the painting with God, but using them as an analogy.
- In conclusion, Anselm argued that in other contexts, we attribute the best possible qualities to God. For instance, when we think of goodness, we attribute perfect goodness to God. He stated, “Hence, the being than which a greater is inconceivable must be whatever should be attributed to the divine essence” (In Reply to Gaunilo, 10).
Kants crtisizm
Criticised general approach of ontological approach
Kant begins by supposing that it is true that existence is part of what it means for God to be perfect. Kant uses the example of a triangle: we know that having three angles is part of what it means for a triangle to be a triangle.
- says that this example comes from a triangle and its existence. ‘judgement’ and not from the A judgement, however, is not the same as the absolute necessity of something.
- The triangle, therefore, only has three angles if the triangle exists in the first place.
- For Kant, ontological arguments are bad logic because they make us suppose that if we justify God’s perfection as including existence we are assuming that God exists: it is circular logic.
- We can make up an object and define it in any number of ways, but this does not make the object exist in reality, even though the definition will continue to be true!
- So, Kant ultimately says that if God exists, then God necessarily exists but if God does not exist then he does not necessarily exist! Or, in other terms, you can accept the predicate of a sentence all you want, but if the subject doesn’t exist in the first place, then there is no possible contradiction
Objection 2
Kant’s second objection concerns the nature of existence as a predicate. He argues that existence is not a proper predicate or a determining quality of an object.
To illustrate, Kant explains that saying “this book is a revision guide” gives information about the book. However, saying “this book exists” does not offer any new information about the book itself. The book does exist, but consider unicorns: saying “a unicorn has a single horn” describes a characteristic of unicorns, while saying “a unicorn exists” does not add any new information about what a unicorn is.
Kant uses the example of a hundred thalers, a currency of his time. He points out that a hundred real thalers and a hundred possible thalers are described in the same way—the number of coins is the same in both cases. The existence of the thalers cannot be defined by logic alone; it is determined by the experience of actually having them. Therefore, Kant argues that a priori arguments, which rely on logic and reason without reference to experience, cannot adequately address the concept of existence.
In conclusion, Kant believes that those who propose ontological arguments for the existence of things are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of existence.
Assessing the ontological argument : can existence be treated as a predicate
Can existence be treated as a predicate?
Kant argued that existence is not a determining predicate, meaning it does not provide information about an object in the same way other predicates do. For instance, saying “a unicorn has a single horn” tells us something about unicorns, but saying “a unicorn exists” does not add new information about the nature of unicorns.
Similarly, Gaunilo criticized Anselm’s argument by suggesting that Anselm was essentially defining things into existence. Gaunilo’s example of a “lost island” illustrates this: the island can have many attributes, but that does not mean it exists.
Anselm responded to Gaunilo by arguing that in the case of God, existence can be seen as a predicate because we are attributing a perfect form of existence to God. In the twentieth century, Norman Malcolm expanded on this idea by distinguishing between contingent existence (the existence of objects that could possibly not exist) and necessary existence (the existence that must be). Malcolm argued that necessary existence, such as that attributed to God, does add information because it signifies a special case.
However, Kant’s initial objection still holds. He argued that a predicate is meaningful only if there is a subject to apply it to. If the existence of the subject itself is in question, then discussing its predicates is irrelevant.
Logical fallacies in this argument
Objections to the ontological argument question its overall internal logic. Key points to consider include:
- Can we define God into existence? Is Anselm’s definition of God as the greatest possible being appropriate?
- Anselm doesn’t define what greatness means, and different people might have different definitions of greatness.
- Is the concept of a greatest possible being even logical?
- Is it fair to assume that everyone shares a common understanding of God?
- Is the argument just a play on words? Is a being’s existence the same as its essence?
- If God can be experienced in any way, is the ontological argument even necessary?
Does the ontological argument justify belief
Despite these issues, it’s evident that the ontological argument doesn’t address the nature of God or whether the God it describes is worthy of worship. But This limitation is shared by all arguments for God’s existence—none provide a complete picture of God. However, each can offer a reason for someone to explore God and religious belief further.
. One might argue that it’s more of a meditation on God’s existence for believers than a proof meant to convince non-believers. Indeed, the ontological argument alone is unlikely to persuade atheists of God’s existence.
Underlying this discussion is the assumption that believers should know everything about God. Yet, many religious people are content with merely glimpses of God. Faith, which differs significantly from reason, involves using these glimpses to navigate daily life.
Priori vs posteriori arguments
A posteriori arguments begin with physical evidence from the world to reach conclusions, while a priori arguments are based on reasoning independent of experience. If we could prove God’s existence through a priori reasoning, there would be little room for doubt, as logical proofs, like those in mathematics, are hard to refute. In contrast, a posteriori arguments are vulnerable to interpretation issues—what one person sees as evidence, another might not. For instance, I might think it’s a nice day, but you might disagree.
Priori better
Our experience can always deceive us. For example, we may be unwell or psychological factors might influence us
A priori arguments work within defined terms and so the logic is easier to follow through
Modern forms of the ontological argument are more convincing than traditional ones
Experiences and observations of the world are unreliable and only pure logic can be reliable
