Ontological Argument Flashcards
Who formulated the ontological argument?
St Anselm of Canterbury
Why is the ontological argument unique?
Its based purely on reason - a priori - not an inductive argument like the others.
What’s the first stage of Anselm’s argument?
He starts by saying that God is that than nothing greater can be conceived. He says greater as he believes any characteristic of God is greater than any human understanding can conceive. Even an athiest would be aware of this fact, however if God is only created in our imagination then he is not the greatest thing imaginable- therefore God has to exist aswell and only a “fool,” would disagree with this as it would be self contradiction.
Who criticised the first stage of Anselms argument?
Gaunilo, a fellow Benedictine monk.
How did Gaunilo critis Anselms argument?
With his analogy of the island, he said that following Anselm’s logic the greatest island imaginable would have to exist. Its a type of argument known as reduction to show absurdity,
What’s the second stage of Anselms argument?
In response to Gaunilo, he said that his argument was still correct as Gaunilo was confused and mixed up necessary existence with contingent existence. As God is a necessary being, he cannot be compared to something as contingent as an island and something which is necessary is much greater then something which is contingent.
How did Descartes support the ontological argument?
God is the most perfect thing imaginable, existence is perfection so God must exist as everything must have necessary qualities to be something. He uses a triangle to demonstrate his point. Triangles have the necessary qualities that they add up to 180 degrees and have 3 sides. He says that existence can be no more separated then God then a triangle can be from those qualities.
How did Hume criticize the ontological argument?
The argument lacked any evidence and he said that it was impossible for something to exist by definition.
What does predicate mean?
A property or attribute of something.
What is Kant’s first critism of the ontological argument?
Existence is not a predicate. He says that adding existence onto something does nothing to enlarge our understanding of an object, rather it is a precondition of any object. We can only know something exists through our sense experience, all existential proposition’s are synthetic.
How does Bertrand Russel critsise the ontological argument?
He drew a distinction between existence and essence, a persons essence may be described but it does not guarantee their existence. He argues that when users of the ontological argument says existence “is” a characteristic of God, this does not make sense as using the word “is,” is what says something exists, so the argument does work.
What is Kant’s second critism of the ontological argument?
The existence of God can be denied without logical contradiction, unlike what Anselm argues that it would be self contradictory to deny the existence of God. If a predicate appears in the definition then it is logically contradictory to say the opposite is true, such as you cant say a bachelor is a married man. Therefore, adding existence to the definition does not mean that it actually does. He also critsies Descartes argument that God is necessary, as we cannot know its necessary until we actually know it exists.
What does Norman Malcom say about the ontological argument?
- God either exists or does not exist. 2. God can neither come into existence or come out of existence. 3. If God exists, then he cannot cease to exist. 4. Therefore if God exists, he exists necessarily. 5. If God does not exist he cannot come into existence. 6. Therefore God does not exist, it is impossible. 7. Therefore his existence is neither necessary or impossible. 8. However Gods existence is only impossible if the concept of God is self contradictory. 9.The concept of God is not self contradictory. 10. Therefore, Gods existence is not impossible. 11. Therefore, Gods existence is necessary.
What is a problem with Malcom’s argument?
He assumes that premise 9 is logically sound.
