Ontological Flashcards
F1) The fool of the pslams
P1. God is the greatest conceivable being (by definition)
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than the mind alone
P3. God exists in the mind
C1. Therefore, God exists in reality
Anselm uses the illustration of a painter who has an idea of what they will paint in their mind before painting it in reality. This illustrates the distinction between our idea of something existing in the mind alone, verses existing both in the mind and in reality.
Anselm points to Psalm 14:1 “the fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’.”
An atheist says they do not believe in God. That implies they at least have an idea of God in their mind, which they are able to reject
Convincing – doesn’t assume that we know all of god, but that we have shared undertsanding of perfection
Anselm presents an analogy. We can’t fully look at the sun but can still see daylight. Similarly, we can’t fully know God, but can at least understand that he is the greatest conceivable being.
A1) Gaunilo - God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding
Objects the premise that the greatest conceivable being exists in the mind/understanding.
Gaunilo draws on the traditional Christian premise that God is beyond our understanding to argue that God therefore cannot be in the understanding.
Anslems weak – relies on ability to see and reason beyond our understanding
Aquinas - God’s nature, such as the ‘eternal law’ is beyond our understanding and that people have different understandings of God.
Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought” – Aquinas.
“of God, or a being greater than all others, I could not conceive at all” – Gaunilo.
2) Gaunilos island
Gaunilo illustrates this with the case of a perfect lost island, an illustration of a thing whose real existence is ‘uncertain and doubtful’ yet exists in his understanding as a concept.
-see how island existing in mind doesn’t mean it exists in reality
Weak as – nothing has been proved, nobody showed the island to exist in the first place
Malcom - its incoherent to say necessary concept of god exists, yet possibly doesn’t exist
See how island doesn’t exist in reality because it is contingent in nature
Its definition relies on external ideas – land and sea
So necessity isnt entailed in definition even if it is perfect
However god is necessary – so cannot not exist
-definition of god doesn’t rely on anything else
3)Kant – circular logic
Malcom fails to distinguish between concept of necessary existence and existence in reality
- can accept that existing neccesarily is what it means to be god, doesn’t mean god exists in reality
Circular logic
-justifies god perfection to entail existence
-therefore assuming god exists, circular logic
Eg) perfect triangle in mind – perfection derives from a judgement not the absolute necessity of something
-judgement is not the same as the absolute necessity of something
-it only has 3 sides if exists in reality, different to idea in mind
Eval 1 - God beyond reasoning (apophatic way)
Gaunilo’s island may be weak, but see the insights of Apophatic theology show that reasoning about God is impossible. Pseudo-Dionysius argues that if we are true to God’s transcendent unknowability, we would recognize that God is simply beyond any human concepts that we can understand.
Plantinga
malcom assumes perfection as including existence, it only shows the idea of god is necessary. Malcom fails to se a distinction between judgements and reality.
Platinga is a modern defender of ontological argument – However acknowledges the logical divide of judgment and reality means Kant’s criticism cannot be overcome. At best the ontological argument rationalizes belief, must have faith beyond this.
F2) Formulation 2- necessity
God as that which nothing greater can be conceived
Continent beings are inferior because they rely on eternal world to survive/reproduce
Thus to be perfection must be necessary
Compelling – necessary beings logical as see god existence is entaild within definition. Necessary beings cannot not exist thus god exists
Malcolm interprets Anselm’s term ‘greater’ as referring to whether a being is limited, e.g., due to depending on something else for its existence.
- God doesn’t have any of the contingencies which could result in non-existence. So, a being greater than which none may be conceived is one whose nonexistence is impossible.
Hartshorne calls this insight “Anselm’s discovery”.
A1) Kant - Existence isnt a predicate
Anselm tries to show that denying God’s existence denies what God is. This seems to treat ‘existence’ as if it described a defining property a thing possesses. That would make the word ‘exists’ a predicate.
- if existence were a predicate, it would be added to our concept of a thing that exists.
-A thing that exists would be conceptually different to that same thing when not existing.
-existence adds nothing to gods definition
if existence were a predicate, then 100 thalers (coins) in reality would be conceptually different to 100 thalers in the mind. However there is no distinction -100 Thalers is the exact same as 100 possible thalers, whether they exist or not adds nothing to their definitionm
Weak as – existence isn’t a defining quality but a comment upon the ontological status of an object – existence is not determined by reason but the empirical experience of something
Existence is a different category, not a predicate by ontological proposition
Defense - Descartes
- Anselm understands ‘God exists’ as a subject-predicate relationship. However Descartes overcomes this
Descartes’ argument doesn’t operate by assigning predicates to subjects, but by determining whether the idea of a supremely perfect being can be clearly and distinctly perceived while excluding necessary existence from it through a purely intellectual operation.
Malcom- Necessary existence can be a predicate
For Existence of a normal contingent kind existence is not a predicate
-But god is unique, he doesn’t rely on anything, sets him apart from other qualities eg) omnipotence
-Contingent beings – existence is external, not a defining quality
-But necessary exteisece is internal, so can be a predicate
Gods necessary existence is a quality contained in god alone, can be a predicate.
Hick – argues the ontological argument fails to distinguish between two types of necessity.
Confuses ontological and logical necessity
Is a distinction of judgment and reality– A priori reasoning showing that existence is necessary to the definition of God in our minds is not the same as showing that God necessarily exists.
Hick argues the ontological argument fails to distinguish between two types of necessity.
-Logical necessity refers to propositions that cannot be false.
-Ontological necessity refers to beings that contain their own reason for existence and are not dependent on anything else (aseity).
It is logically possible for an ontologically necessary being to not exist.
Malcolm commits the fallacy of equivocation
when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way
-uses necessary/impossible in ontological sense, cannot seize/start existence
-whereas malacons inference to how god exists objectively employs the logical sense – that its logically possible not to exist in reality
when Anselm and Descartes define God as the greatest conceivable or supremely perfect being, that only justifies ascribing ontological necessity to God.
Their inference to the conclusion of God’s existence being logically necessity is not justified.
So, the ontological argument at most proves that if God exists, then God exists in a special way, such as with ontological necessity.
