ontological argument Flashcards
give Anselm’s 1st ontological argument (deductive a priori)
- God is that than which no greater can be conceived
- The concept of God exists only in our minds
- If God only existed in our minds then one existing in reality would be greater
- This is not possible as God is ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’ and existence must be a part of this
- So, God must exist
Gaunilo’s perfect island response?
if you replace ‘God’ with an ‘island’ in Anslem’s argument, it reveals that we can’t deny that the island COULD exist, but doesn’t mean it DOES exist just because you can conceive of it
responses: Plantiga says Anselm never compared things of a like kind. God is that than which NOTHING greater can be conceived
2 responses to Gaunilo’s perfect island response
- Plantinga: the island example compares things of a like kind which can always be bettered. The original ont. arg does not: ‘that than which NOTHING greater AT ALL can be conceived
- Anselm: key difference is that an island is contingent (we can think of it as not existing), God is necessary (can’t be thought of as not existing)
Anselm’s second ontological argument
- God is that than which no greater can be conceived
- It is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being
- If God exists only as a contingent being then a greater God could be imagined
- This would be greater than God
- God is therefore a necessary being
- God must exist in reality
what are Aquinas’s objections to the ontological argument?
Objection 1: merely conceiving of God is not enough for his existence to be necessary, as we can conceive of him not existing
Objection 2: the concept of God is too far beyond humans for us to comprehend it, so we can’t use this definition for an argument
what is Descartes’ ontological argument?
- Whatever Descartes conceives “clearly and distinctly” to be certain must be so
- We conceive clearly and distinctly that God is a ‘supremely perfect being’
- a supremely perf being has all perfections
- existence is a perfection
- so God exists
what is Leibniz’s addition to Descartes’ ontological arg?
we must demonstrate how a supremely perfect being is coherent first -
perfection is a ‘simple quality which is positive and absolute’
- cannot be defined in terms of something else
- cannot be defined as a negation of something else
Hume’s empiricist rejection of ontological arg?
A priori existence crosses the fork so is wrong. Also we can conceive of God as not existing; necessary being is impossible
RESPONSES:
Descartes: rationalism is right, not empiricism
Or, God is an analytic truth as existence is part of his definition, A priori analytic truth.
how does Kant critique the ontological argument?
existence does not describe or add anything to the concept of God so it isn’t a predicate and can’t be used in the way Anselm and Descartes use it, as existence can’t be a necessary attribute of God
What is Malcolm’s ontological arg?
- God either necessarily exists, necessarily does not exist, contingently exists, or contingently does not exist.
- God’s existence (or lack of) cannot be contingent as this would mean he is not the greatest
- God cannot necessarily not exist, as only logical contradictions do so (a triangle has 4 sides), and God is not a logical contradiction.
- So, God must necessarily exist.
ontol arg essay plan
ont arg utterly fails as all forms (though some are more coherent than others) make the contradiction of arguing for a necessary existence which crosses Hume’s fork
Anselm 1: okay but jumps from ‘could’ exist to ‘does’ exist
Gaunillo’s perfect island response disproves
Anselm 2: gets around Gaunillo
But Kant’s predicates
Malcolm solves Kant’s predicates. Good but not thorough as it fails to critically analyse the possibiltiy of necessary existence, relying on narrowing down.
Hume: shows that necessary existence is impossible as it crosses the fork. Good, succeeds according to empiricism and V.P.
