Ontological Flashcards
Who is Anselm?
“Prosogion”
Influenced by Aristotle who claimed contradiction is impossible
“there is no god” would be nonsense for a rational mind, as God by his very nature has to exist - the fool says what he does in chapter 3 because he doesn’t understand
what is anselms argument?
by definition, because he’s the GCB - reality is presumed to be greater than imagination, so the greatest thing would exist in reality
he later refined the argument saying that God is a necessary being (he cannot not exist as he’s greatest)
to say god is necessary is to say that part of him is existence, not possible for him not to exist
how does gaunilo criticise anselm ?
it is possible to construct an argument with exactly the same form as the ontological argument, that purports to prove the existence of a perfect island; the perfect island must exists as if it did not then it would be possible to conceive an even greater island
if anything we can imagine can be real, how can a distinction be made between reality
how does aquinas criticise anselm?
a concept’s being in the intellect does not imply that there is a reality corresponding to it
we can only know god in his effects, not in his divine existence - this is because we do not know the essence of god so the proposition is not self-evident to us aka god exists because he’s the GCB is not evident
how does descartes develop the ontological argument?
mediations
descartes explains that existence is a predicate of perfection and god is perfect so therefore must exists
uses the composition of a triangle - a triangle would not be one if it did not have 3 sides much like existing is what makes god himself.
how does kant critique descartes?
existance isn’t a predicate - a predicate adds something to the concept but saying “god exists” doesn’t change who god is
ESSAY PLAN - Is a posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 1 - (a priori)
P1 – A PRIORI
A: A PRIORI ARGUMENTS ARE CLEAR AND COMPLETE
• A priori deductive argument based on reason – moves from premise (God’s existing nature) to explanation, working off Aristotelian logic which claims a contradiction is impossible clear and logical thus arguably better than a posteriori as everyone can understand logic, not everyone sees the world in the same ordered way
• “The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’” (Psalms 14): The fool contradicts himself, as God, by very definition, is “something which nothing greater can be thought”
ESSAY PLAN - Is a posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 1 - counter argument (gaunilo islands)
CA: LOGICAL FALLACIES – PERFECT ISLAND
• ‘On behalf of the fool’ Gaunilo – possible to construct an argument with exactly the same internal logic that purports to prove the existence of a perfect island: one could imagine a perfect island thus it must exist as reality is more perfect than imagination anything we imagine as perfect has to exist, a priori rests on flawed logic, falls through quickly
ESSAY PLAN - Is a posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 1 - counter response (necessary beings + boethius)
R: GOD’S NECESSITY – LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF A CONTRADICTION
• Necessary beings are greater than contingent beings thus God must be necessary (as if he were contingent he would not be the greatest conceivable being); if he is necessary then he cannot not exist. The character of God’s existence has a special truth which is not available to any other being, “anything else does not exist so truly and therefore has less being”
• Boethius categorises everything into four categories; God is part of the category ‘cannot not be’, he is different to anything in the universe and cannot be thought of in the same way as other things, of which existence wouldn’t be a predicate.
ESSAY PLAN - Is a posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 1 - conclusive response (cannot know gods nature, augustine)
CR: CANNOT BE SURE OF THE PREMISE AS CANNOT KNOW GOD’S NATURE ARGUMENT FALLS THROUGH
• A priori arguments provide certainty in the way a mathematical formula does, much like defining a triangle, but we can only define a triangle because we know what it entails to be a triangle Puzzling to argue God is a necessary being when 1) we know of nothing that is necessary thus using the words seems meaningless (Russell) 2) we do not know of God’s nature.
• Augustine argued, “if you claim you have grasped him, what you have grasped is not God”. Although the argument is clear and complete, it perhaps forces us to make the immediate leap of faith of belief in God, whereas an a posteriori argument moves from the known to the unknown
ESSAY PLAN - Is a posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 2 - (a posteriori, aquinas)
P2 – A POSTERIORI
A: OBSERVATION OF THE WORLD, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS A DESIGNER
• In part I of his famous ‘Summa Theologica’ Aquinas gives his famous Five Ways for the existence of God, claiming we can only reach God through observation of this world (an Aristotelian notion of empiricism) stronger than a priori perhaps, as the argument is inductive, and one can arrive at a conclusion from experience and evaluation, as opposed to an uncertain premise teleological argument: fifth of his five ways, arguing everything in the world seems to have purpose, but cannot move from potentiality to actuality without a guiding force – arrow archer God must exist
posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 2 - counter argument (leaps of logic, hume)
CA: INDUCTIVE LEAPS OF LOGIC
• Yet the a posteriori argument can still be challenged Hume questions how one can look at effects and jump immediately to the cause – it is an inductive leap of logic to go from observation of this world (albeit ordered or not) to knowledge of an infinite, transcendent and immutable creator. This point can be illustrated by a pair of scales with one side hidden – all we know is that the object on the other side is heavier, we do not know what the object is perhaps a priori is better as it provides a more certain understanding of God as the GCB, teleological arguments at most, suggest God exists, failing to assert anything at all about his nature
posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 2 - counter response (fr tenannt, teleological)
R: ANTHROPIC, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, HUMAN EXPERIENCE
• Modern versions of the teleological argument perhaps offer insight into his nature anthropic principle posed by F R Tennant: suggests the universe exists for the sake of humankind, as if the initial conditions of the earth had been otherwise, we would not exist to observe these conditions. Can’t have just evolved, conditions are so right that it must have been designed, everything is for our benefit suggests a loving creator, cares about mankind, Leibniz assertion that this is the “best of all possible worlds.”
posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 2 - conclusive response (mill + kenny, problem of evil)
CR: PROBLEM OF EVIL
• J S Mill argues the world was clearly not set up for the good of humans – not only are human beings cruel, but nature is cruel; Stephen Fry echoes David Attenborough’s comment that the God who put the whale in the sea is the God who put the parasite in the eye of the starving child. From a flawed universe, the most we can infer is a flawed creator, “a God which is no more the source of good than evil” (Kenny)
posteriori or a priori the more persuasive style of argument?
Point 3 (prior belief, unfalsifiable)
A: THE SUCCESS OF BOTH ARGUMENTS RESTS ON PRIOR BELIEF
• One can respond to arguments against a posteriori claims (such as the evidential problem of evil) by arguing that the problem of evil and suffering is a case of category error, and the problem lies in our understanding, not God – unfalsifiable
• Equally, one can see that a priori claims are unfalsifiable, as the argument rests on a pre-decided premise of God’s existence, which is reach through a leap of faith and not rational argument
