ontological argument Flashcards
is the argument inductive or deductive? why?
deductive as the conclusion comes logically from the premises, so the conclusion itself is proof for the argument. if a person accepts the premises but denies that god exists, they commit a logical contradiction
outline Anselm’s argument
P1- God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
P2- We can recognise two types of existence. Existence in mens and existence in re
P3-it is greater to exist in mens AND in re than just in mens
P4- in order to fit the definition of ttwngcbc, God must exist in mens and in re
C-therefore, god exists in re
why might Anselm’s argument be strong
The argument is deductive as the truth and conclusion in the argument are held within the argument itself. it is logically valid and does not rely on any empirical evidence as we know it’s dubitable. If we can agree on the premises of the argument and deny the conclusion, we are committing a logical contradiction. This is known as the fallacy of antecedent
Guanilos objection to Anselm1
known as the “lost island objection”. Guanilo argues if we apply this line of argument to the most ‘perfect island’ the conclusion would not follow. essentially, we would be saying that if we can conceive of the most perfect island, the most perfect island must exist in reality
Guanilos objection to anselm? -2
We cannot conceive of the greatest possible being. Having the concept of god does not allow me to grasp the identity of god. The only thing capable of conceptualising god is god himself.
what does a reductio ad absurdum mean?
it is a type of argument that aims to disprove a statement or a claim by proving it leads to absurd or contradictory conclusions. Guanilo suggests Anselms argument can bring anything into existence as long as we say it has a property of greatness
how does Anselm respond to Guanilo?
the two things being compared (god and the most perfect island) are not similar enough to warrant the criticism. The island is contingent while god is necessary. Hence, the criticism fails
How does Plantiga respond to Anselm??
The difference between Anselm’s god and Guanilos island is the concept of Intrinsic Maximum. The most perfect island has no intrinsic maximum as you can always add more palm trees and more dancing girls. This does not apply to god as there is no baseline from which the notion of god is measured and below which it can not fall without entailing a logical contradiction.
Guanilos’s objection to Anselm? -1
known as the “lost island objection”. Guanilo argues if we apply this line of argument to the most ‘perfect island’ the conclusion would not follow. essentially, we would be saying that if we can conceive of the most perfect island, the most perfect island must exist in reality
outline Descartes’s ontological argument
1- God is a ‘supremely perfect being’ (SPB)
2-A supremely Perfect being would possess all perfections
3-Existence is a perfection
4- Existence is a predicate of the supremely perfect being
C- therefore God exists.
To deny God’s existence is to be in a state of logical contradiction, in the same manner as saying a triangle has four sides is self-contradictory
How does Hume criticise Descartes?
Arguing a triangle has four sides is self-contradictory but to deny that triangles exist is not. We can deny god exists without being in a state of logical contradiction. Hume suggests statements about existence belong to experience and therefore are synthetic, NOT analytic. e,g analytic statement: all single men are bachelors.Synthetic statement: bachelors exist
how does Descartes respond?
God’s existence is as necessary to his essence as three sides are to a triangle or a valley is to a mountain. Just as a two-sided triangle is illogical, gods non-existence is likewise a logical contradiction
how are Descartes and Anselm’s arguments different? who highlights this distinction?
Brian Davis propounds Anselm’s not saying that God’s non-existence is self-contradictory. rather, Anselm is saying that the greatest conceivable being. cannot just exist in the mind; it must exist in reality as well. This is different to Descartes’s scholastic point therefore (Anselm’s version of) the ontological argument holds up against Hume’s criticism.
Summarise Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument
Typically considered a definite refutation of the argument, Kant argues ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a real predicate. Kant argues adding the ‘predicate’ exists to something tells us nothing in the way the predicate ‘lime green’ tells us something about a $1 bill. A genuine predicate DESCRIBES an object; existence does not do this therefore existence is not a property a thing can possess.
Kants Thaler example:
He used the example of a thaler. We can take the statement: ‘a gold, heavy, battered old thaler’ and compare it to, ‘a gold heavy battered old thaler exists’. The latter statement does not tell us anything more than the first one.
You might disagree and argue that we have learnt something about the thaler: that it exists. If you are right, let us write the sentence in the negative, ‘a gold heavy battered old thaler does not exist’. And here rests the problem: if existence ascribes a property to the thaler, how can something that does not exist lack the property of existence? Therefore ‘exists’ cannot be a property that a thing possesses. It functions in a different way.
