Ontological Argument Flashcards
Ontological Arguments
We can deduce existence of God from the concept of God.
Just from thinking about what God is, we can conclude that God must exist.
Because it doesn’t depend on experience - a priori.
Argument 1 For
St Anselm:
Concept of God is a being ‘greater than which cannot be conceived’.
We can’t think of anything greater than God…
Two beings, the one that exists is greater.
So, if God didn’t exist, we could conceive of something greater than God, but as discussed this is impossible.
Further, x = can conceive not to exist, y = not existing is inconceivable. Necessary existence is coherent. Y is greater than X as a being who must exist is greater than one who may or may not exist. Therefore, the greatest conceivable is one that must exist.
It is inconceivable for the greatest conceivable being to not exist.
So, God must exist.
Anselm Counter
Gaunilo:
Conclusion doesn’t follow from premises.
How great is the greatest conceivable being? If it doesn’t exist, not that great at all, not as great as any real object.
We can conceive of how great a being would be if it existed, but that doesn’t show it is great.
Perfect Island Example - island must exist.
Anselm (Argu1) Eval
Although we can conceive of God being the greatest conceivable being, this doesn’t mean is actually is. If God doesn’t exist then not only is he not great, he isn’t a being at all.
Not a being, can’t be the greatest conceivable being.
Can only say, if God does or were to exist, then God is or would be the greatest conceivable being.
So, before we can say God is the greatest conceivable being, we must first demonstrate that God exists.
Argument 2 For
Descartes Ontological Argument:
Clear and distinct - triangle example.
Clear and distinct idea of God and a supremely perfect being.
Supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection.
Existence is a perfection.
So, God exists.
Why is existence a perfection? It is entailed by the other perfections of God. Omnipotent = cannot depend on another being for its existence, since it would lack the power to cause it’s own existence.
So, to say that ‘God doesn’t exist’ is a contradiction and so it must be true that he does exist.
Descartes Counter
Hume:
Hume’s fork - separates what we can know a priori (relation of ideas) to what we can know a posteriori (matter of fact). So that anything a priori must be a relation of ideas.
So, if ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction, then ‘God exists’ is a analytic truth. But this can’t be right since claims about what exist are matters of fact, synthetic propositions. So the proposition is not genuine knowledge. ‘God exist’ cannot be known a priori.
Descartes (Argu2) Eval
Descartes would reject Hume’s fork and argue that not everything that we can conceive of existing can we also conceive of not existing.
God is the exception. His divine attributes entail one another, such as omnipotence and necessary existence.
However, this argument faces Gaunilo’s objection. God’s attributes only entail each other in fact,, is he actually exists. If he doesn’t exist, then he isn’t omnipotent and so doesn’t have necessary existence.
Argument 3 For
Malcolm:
Different approach to Anselm’s texts.
As explained, necessary existence is a perfection.
As it is a necessary truth that God is ‘the greatest conceivable being’, God’s existence cannot depend on anything to come into or stay in existence. Independent is greater.
If God does exist, then he cannot cease to exist. Nothing can cause God to cease to exist. So, if God exists, he exists necessarily.
He also can not come into existence as he would be dependent on whatever caused or allowed God to exist, which is impossible.
Therefore, if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible.
Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible.
Finally, God’s existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory. It is not, so God’s existence is not impossible and he therefore exists necessarily.
Malcolm Counter
Malcolm argues that God cannot be brought into existence as he would then depend upon something.
But this is impossibility is not the same as the existence of something impossible. If God does not exist, what makes his existence impossible is not the self-contradictory nature of the concept of God, but the self-contradiction in the idea of bring God into existence.
Therefore, even if we allow that the concept of God is coherent, we still cannot conclude that God’s existence is not impossible.
The only conclusion we can draw form Malcolm’s argument is that ‘if God doesn’t exist, God’s existence is impossible’ and ‘if God exists, God exists necessarily’.
The problem is, we don’t know whether God exists or not.
Malcolm (Argu3) Eval
As well as the counter, we still hasn’t proved the concept of God is coherent. It could be that God’s concept is self-contradictory and therefore his existence is impossible.
