Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

philosophy of religion > ontological argument > Flashcards

ontological argument Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Religion Crash Course flashcards
1
Q

where does first formulation of anselms argument come from

A

proslogion 2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

a priori argument

A

relies on logic and reasoning
-empirical evidence not used in argument

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what do a priori arguments depend on

A

-validity of premise which should make conclusions an obvious deduction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

anselms definition of god

A

-that than which nothing greater can be conceived

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

the fool and anselm

A

-Psalm- the fool hath says there is no god
-how can you say no god if you know definiton

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

anselms premise and conclusion of argument

A

P1. God is the greatest conceivable being (by definition)
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than the mind alone
P3. God exists in the mind
C1. Therefore, God exists in reality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

anselms OA justifies belief in god

A

most people agree with definiton, if god exists he would be greatest concievable being
-a priori and based on logic, senses deceive so better to rely on logic
-following premises, god has to exist because greatest being, valid reasoning to say better in reality than in mind

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

anselms OA does not justify belief in god arguments

A

-is it possible to define something into existence we dont know of or isnt physical
-a priori can use invalid logic, a posteriori give evidence empirically for god
-we can argue better to exist in mind alone as we can imagine things that are otherwise impossible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

guanilos premise for disagreeing with anselm

A

-criticises logic of OA
-argues having understanding of something in your mind so it must exist in reality not good logic

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Guanilos lost island

A

-greatest island no ones ever found
-any island in real life greater
-since island greatest island better to exist in reality than mind
-island must exist in reality but doesnt because he made it up SIKEEE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

guanilos criticism of anselm

A

-island doesnt exist in reality
-easier to have understanding of things we can see but cant know for certain god
-difficult to have idea of god even in mind
-just because we understand something in our minds doesnt mean it exists in reality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

where is anselms second formulation from

A

proslogion 3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

anselms second formulation NOT AS RESPONSE TO GUANILO

A
  • same as formulation 1
    -possible to think of beings that come in and out of existence contingent and necessary
    -necessary being greater than contingent being
    -since necessary being greater than contingent and god greatest so god must exist
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

guanilos criticisms are successful arguments

A

-possible to imagine something in your mind, doesnt have to exist in reality,
-anselm defining something into existence, possible to have definition of something that exists in imagination
-B Russell- existence only meaningful if it refers to instance of something

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

guanilos criticisms are weak arguments

A

-platinga supports anselm against guanilo, island has no intrinsic maxim, always be improved, god has intrinsic maxim- greatest so he exists
-how a priori works- if you agree with definition then conclusions folllow
-Guanilo and Russell, need for empirical evidence to prove existence, senses have problems

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

analytic statement

A

-statement that contains truth needed to verify it within the statement itself
-true because of its meaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

synthetic statement

A

-statement that needs external evidence to verify whether it is true or false

18
Q

kants criticisms are successful arguments

A

-kant right to argue existence synthetic verification, god exists not analytical, all statements about things existing synthetic and need external proof
-existence not real predicate, doesnt add anything new to description of concept
-definition concept does not bring it into existence, if we can think existence we can think non existence

19
Q

kants criticism are weakness arguments

A

-a priori uses reason only not synthetic evidence, mountain has valley, cant be separated
-definition of god includes predicate of existence, existence part of what it means to be greatest being
-god logically necessary, second formulation, greater than contingent and no non existence so must exist

20
Q

descartes OA more success

A

-descartes defines god as supremely perfect being, existence predicate because its part of essence of god
-descartes argues existence part of gods essential essence in same way triangle has 3 sides,
-god exists analytic statement, no need for evidence because term good has idea of existence, logically necessary

21
Q

kants criticisms stronger than descartes OA

A

kant argues existence not proper predicate because doesnt add something extra to description
-triangle defining thing having 3 sides but possible to reject definition and concept
-god exists as synthetic statement, need evidence of things that exist, OA cant prove existence from reason alone

22
Q

a priori arguments more persuasive arguments

A

-rely only on reason and logic so dont need misleading senses
-more persuasive because have premises that have to lead to conclusions, once premise agreed conclusions must agreed, most certainty
-concepts can be defined a priori and dont rely on empirical evidence that has different int.

23
Q

a posteriori arguments more persuasive arguments

A

-a posteriori relies on empiricism, everyone can observe them
-start from what is known
-2 explorers see same evidence but have different int. can lead to probable evidence

24
Q

strength of OA in definition of god

A

-anselm uses theolgoically and philosophically convincing definition for god
-avoids defining something beyond our understanding
-we cant fully know god but can understand him

25
Q

weakness of OA god not in mind/ understanding

A

-guanilo objection to P3
-draws on traditional christian premise that god beyond understanding so god can not be in understanding
-he then cannot reason whether it would also be greater in reality- OA fails because relies on our ability to understand and reason about things beyond us

26
Q

evaluation defending OA god in understanding

A

-Guanilo not success because full understanding of nature of god not required to work
-Peter Van Inwagen- our limited understanding of god enough to justify name
-god has traits we can conceive
-we can grasp concept to greater to exist so must exist

27
Q

evaluation criticizing OA- god not in mind/understanding

A

-when we think about concept of being greater than anything we could imagine idea of being not in our understanding
-Apophatic theology- reasoning of god impossible
-god beyond assertion and denial
-

28
Q

deductive argument as a strength of OA

A

deductive argument strong because only way to attack them is deny truth of premises
-stronger than inductive because they can also be attacked by arguing that conclusion false even if premises are true

29
Q

Guanilos weakness of OA not deductive- attacking premise of god existing in reality

A

-anselms argument should show if god exists then he is the greatest being and therefore has necessary existence
-not enough to shoe god does exist necessarily
-perfect lost island argument
-absurd result
-wouldnt work for island

30
Q

evaluation defending OA
OA is deductive

A

-anselms 2nd form
-island contingent
-god necessary
-existence of a priori beings cannot prove a priori since existence not a matter of definition
-nothing in concept of greatest being that involves dependence making it necessary being

31
Q

evaluation criticizing OA- not deductive- weak premise of god existing in reality

A

-even if anselm right that we cannot conceive god without existence that only proves if god existed necessarily
-such that if god existed it would be in a special way where god could not cease to exist
-doesnt tell us god actually exists

32
Q

descartes and rationalist epistemology based OA

A

-we can gain certain knowledge as some truths of a priori through rational intuition
-can think of concept of supremely perfect being
-can rationally appreciate that god contains perfection of existence
-similar to how we thing of triangle with 3 sides

33
Q

descartes premises OA

A

P1 – I have an idea of a supremely perfect being which contains all perfections
P2 – Existence is a perfection
C3 – God exists

34
Q

kants objection 1 to OA
- a priori reasoning cannot establish existence

A

-kant argues anselm and descartes treat existence as predicate
-argues god must exist in order to be god
-existence being predicate does not establish gods existence in reality
-triangle must have 3 sides but only has 3 sides if exists
-can still deny maximally great being doesnt exist
-

35
Q

evaluation defending OA against objection 1

A

-kant objection 1 not success
-kants 1 objection seems to accept ontological argument shows gods necessary
-kant accepts god is being which contains own reason and existence
-incoherent for kant to grant gods necessity while maintaining gods non existence possible

36
Q

evaluation criticizing OA strength of kants objection 1

A

-god exists necessarily because nothing could cause god to cease existing
-a being could be non dependent and not exist
-neccessity only established to manner of god existence if god exists
-platinga- rational to accept premise to to accept conclusion aswell

37
Q

strength of OA- anselm develops 2nd formulation as necessary existence

A

–proslogion 3- existence greater than non existence because a being greater if if cannot cease existing
-if being ceases existing it depends on something else to exist
-malcolm points out dependence as limitation and language of inferiority
-a being non dependent unlimited and greatest conceivable thing

38
Q

kants 2nd objection- existence not a predicate

A

-existence not a quality that defines something
-existing doesnt describe that thing
-not defining predicate of thing
-kant 100 thalers- not different concept in mind or in reality
-predicate of shiny and round but not existing
-

39
Q

evaluation defending OA existence predicate

A

-kants argument doesnt work for necessary beings
-necessary being contains reason for existence within itself
-since reason within itself neccessary existence defining part of thing in way contingent esistence not
-there neccessary existence predicate

40
Q

humes weakness of OA- impossible for a necessary being

A

-analytical and synthetic reasoning
-a being having necessary existence doesnt seem to be matter of fact since it must exist
-invalid to claim beings existence logically must be when cant be established through logic

philosophy of religion (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions