ontological argument

Question 1

ontology

Answer 1

study of being

Question 2

ontological argument

Answer 2

• use a priori reasoning
• deductive arguments
• versions of the ontological argument aim to deduce God’s existence from the definition of God - thus, proponents of ontological arguments claim ‘God exists’ is an analytic truth

Question 3

Anselm’s argument in chapter two of the proslogian

Answer 3

1. god is ‘something-than-which-nothing-greater-can be-though’
2. something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’ exists in the mind
   - even an atheist would agree with this
   - Anselm uses the analogy of a painter who has an idea of what they will paint in their mind before creating the painting in reality, this shows that there is a difference between an object being in the mind and being in reality
3. if this thing exists in the mind alone, then something greater than it can be thought (due to it being greater to exist in reality than the mind alone)
4. this thing cannot exist in the mind alone otherwise a contradiction will be generated
5. therefore, something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind and in reality
   - (an atheist who does not believe God exists in reality still has the idea of God in the understanding (their mind), Anselm argues that since God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is incoherent to think that God exists in the mind alone because then we could conceive of something greater, i.e., that thing also existing in reality, what we conceived of is the greatest conceivable being and so it must exist in reality, otherwise it would not be the greatest conceivable being)

Question 4

Gaunilo’s on behalf of the fool

Answer 4

• response to Anselm
  1. the perfect island is an-island-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought
  2. an-island-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind
  3. if this island exists in the mind alone then an island greater than it can be thought
  4. this island cannot exist in the mind alone otherwise a contradiction will be generated
  5. therefore, the perfect island exists in the mind and in reality

Question 5

Gaunilo

Answer 5

• his perfect island argument is a parody, this type of objection is called reductio ad absurdum
• he claims that if you accept Anselm’s argument then you must also accept the perfect island argument
• this is absurd, so you ought to reject both
• Gaunilo attacks the inference from God existing in the mind to the God existing in reality
• Anselm’s argument could succeed in showing that if God exists, then God is the greatest being and even that it subsists in itself, i.e., has necessary existence
• however, this is not enough to show that God does exist necessarily
• Gaunilo then illustrates this with the case of a perfect lost island, which is an illustration of a thing whose real existence is ‘uncertain and doubtful’ yet is in his understanding as a concept

Question 6

Anselm’s response

Answer 6

• Anselm claimed his argument only worked for god, and couldn’t be used to prove the existence of anything else
• all islands depend on other things to exist (e.g. water), so they are contingent
• only god is completely independent, so only he can be completely perfect

Question 7

Hick’s response

Answer 7

• claimed that the ontological argument only works for concepts with intrinsic maximums
• the definition of a perfect island is incoherent because there are no intrinsic maximums
• god does have intrinsic maximums (e.g. all powerful)

Question 8

Aquinas’ objection

Answer 8

• believed in god, but claimed that knowledge of god must come through experience, not reason alone
• he claimed that things can be necessary in two ways: in itself and to us, in itself and not to us
• god is necessary, but we cannot grasp that because we cannot grasp god

Question 9

Descartes’ ontological argument

Answer 9

• he claimed that we can grasp the concept of god, even though we cannot fully understand it
• he gave the example of a triangle, we can grasp the concept even before we understand all of its properties
• he thought having the concept of a being with all perfections was enough to grasp the concept of god, even though we don’t know everything this entails

Question 10

Descartes’ ontological argument in premises

Answer 10

1. god is the being with all perfections
2. existence is a perfection
3. god exists

Question 11

Kant’s argument: existence is not a predicate

Answer 11

• Kant argues that Descartes and Anselm are assuming that existence is a property
• it is something that a thing can either have, or lack, and it is something that makes a thing better
• Kant claims that existence is not a predicate
• it is not something you can say about a thing, since there has to already be a thing for you to say something about it
• Kant says that existence does not add to a concept, it is saying that a thing corresponds to the concept
• Kant also argues that even if existence is a predicate, that does not mean that god must exist
• that just shows that god and existence must go together
• we can always reject god and his existence in total

Question 12

response to Kant

Answer 12

• Kant could be right about existence, but maybe is not right about necessary existence
• learning that something is necessary, rather than contingent, does add to our concept of a thing, so could be a property
• existence can change your understanding of something, e.g. reading about christopher robin in winnie the pooh, then learning that he is real

Question 13

Malcom

Answer 13

• he believed that Kant had revealed the problem with Anselm’s argument
• he thought that Anselm had shown that god cannot come into existence, or go out of existence, because the greatest being would have no beginning or end
• this shows that god always exists or never exists

Question 14

Malcom’s ontological argument

Answer 14

1. either god cannot go out of existence or he cannot come into existence (Malcom thinks that Anselm has shown that god is not contingent)
2. either god is necessary or he is impossible
3. something is only impossible if it is a contradiction
4. ‘god exists’ is not contradiction
5. so, god is not impossible
6. therefore, god is necessary

Question 15

objection to Malcom

Answer 15

• Malcom is using two different definitions of necessary and impossible, and switching between them
• he starts off with: necessary - always exists, impossible - never exists
• he then shifts to: necessary - must be true, impossible - must be false
• Malcom is guilty of a fallacy of equivocation
• he has not completely ruled out the god is not contingent, or that god is impossible
• it is equivocation because Malcom uses different definitions, so it looks like he has ruled out stuff, but he hasn’t

Question 16

Hume - ‘god does not exist’ is not a contradiction

Answer 16

• the ontological argument reasons from the definition of God that God must exist, making ‘God exists’ an analytic truth (or what Hume would call a relation of ideas)
• the denial of an analytic truth/relation of ideas leads to a contradiction
• contradictions cannot be coherently conceived
• so, is ‘God does not exist a contradiction? Descartes (and Anselm) certainly thought so
• but Hume argues against this claim: anything we can conceive of as existent, we can also conceive of as non-existent, showing that ‘God exists’ cannot be an analytic truth/relation of ideas, and so ontological arguments must fail somewhere