ontological argument Flashcards
ontological argument characteristics
- a priori
- based on reason
- deductive
anselm book
proslogion
basic ontological argument
- god is defined as the greatest conceivable being
- it is better to exist in reality than in my mind alone
- god exists in the mind
=> god exists in reality
in short short anselm ontological argument
the definition of god IMPLIES his existence.
what does ontological derive from
ontos - greek verb ‘to be’ = an ontological argument depend on only the definition of the term
where did anselm set out the definition for god and book
in De Veritate
there must be a supreme principle of truth through which other things must be judged to be true. the absolute truth is god himself.
descartes ontological argument
arguing god was the “supremely perfect” being which contained the perfection of existence. God is like a triange and three sides, they are inseperable
trademark argument - you already have the idea of hod.
anselm influenced by
st augustine - emphasising the truth through reason rather than faith alone
advocated for the rationalisation of christian belief
“i do not seek to understand that i may beleive, but i believe that i may understand”
Monologion arguments
there must be one supremely good thing
“that which is good through itself is greater than that which is good through another”
- there must be one thing that is supremely good (source of all other goodness)
- this principle of goodness is a great good in itself, not derived externally
ontological argument in proslogion in kinda more deatil (fool)
- even the fool understands the conept of god, even if he denies his existence (Psalm 14:1, “the fool says in his heart, there is no god”
- if god exists in the mind alone, a greater being could be conceived (one that exists in reality
- since god is “that which nothing greater can be conceived”, he must exist in reality
gaunilo’s criticism
uses the perfect island analogy - just because one can conceive a perfect island does not mean it exists
god is perfect, perfect things must exist,
highlights the
REDUCTO ABSERDIUM
plantinga counter to gaunilo’s perfect island
a valid deductive argument does not necessarily mean a sound argument eg all toasters are items made of gold, all items made of gold are time travel devices, = all toasters are time travel-devices
how does anselm refute gaunilo
IN THE RESPONSIO
necessary existence - distinguishes god from contingent things like islands
“the property of necessary existence is only a property of the greatest conceivable being - only god MUST exist”
= god’s nature is fundamentally different from contingent beings as his existence is NECESSARY
leibnz personal opnion
rationalist, mathmatician
rejected reliance on experience alone, arguing metaphysical truths eg god’s existence can be understood through logic and reason
descartes argues
- god is a supremely perfect being
- perfection includes existence
- therefore god exists
leibnz’ concern with descartes
descartes assumes that god is possible without proving it.
leibnz argues that before proving necessary existence, one must prove that god’s existence is POSSIBLE
principle of non-contraditction
leibnz’ main contribution
a concept is possible if it does not contradict itself
since god is a perfect being, there is no contradiction in his existence
meaning god is possible
therefore, god can necessarily exist.
kant’s criticism plus example and conclusion and cheeky quote
challenges the assumption that existence adds to a concept. = EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE
eg a hundred real coins v imagined coins - both have the same conceptual definition
“I reject the predicate while retaining the subject” - you can imagine a perfect being (subject) without assuming it exists (predicate)
= ADDING EXISTENCE DOES NOT CHANGE THE DEFINTION OR PROPERTIES OF AN OBJECT
kant further arguments
synthetic v analytic statements
analytic = true by definition (a bachelor is unmarried)
synthetic statement = requires empirical verification (it is raining)
kant argues that “god exists” is synthetic, meaning we need empirical evidence to prove it
russel critique
critiques anselm’s reasoning as linguistic trickery
- king of france is bald - theres no king of france, and hes not, just because you can imagine, not verified
NO because his existence must be verified, not assumed in a definition
= if existence is a predicate, we could define anything into existence
example - we could define a perfect unicorn into reality
Findlay’s Paradox
if god’s existence is necessary, it should be self-evident. but since god’s existence is debated, he suggests god is not a necessary being
hartshorne general
theist, modern supporter of anselm’s ontologival argument.
traditional versions of the argument failed, but could be improved using modal logic.
= focuses on how god’s existence is logically necessary
hartshorne 1. anselm’s argument is misunderstood
- anselm was not just proving that god exists, but god necessarily exists
= meaning that either god’s existence is impossible, or it is necessary, no middle groun
hartshorne 2. critique of classical theism x2 and ao2
- classical theism assumes god as an unchanging being - but harshorne argued that god is dynamic and process based
god’s perfection includes both necessary existence and responsiveness to the world
(immutable = perfection, aristotle?!!)
how does harsthorne respond to finlay’s paradox
just because many people do not recognise necessary existence, doesnt mean it is false. eg mathmatical truths exist but not everyone understands them
plantinga
modal version
a maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds if it exists in one
if god is possible, he msut exist necessarily
since his existence is not impossible, he must exist in our world
iris murdoch x2 and x2 criticisms
claims the moral argument for god is stronger than the logical one
- god is the source of goodness
- moral realism requires an external perfect standard - god fills this role.
(critique is that it assumes morality needs an objective basis, and morality can exist independently from god)
karl barth
critiques anselm - not convincing for atheists.
human reason is flawed due to sin - god must reveal himself.
ontological argument assumes humans can reason their way to god - true knowledge of god comes from divine revolution
**“faith seeks understanding, not the other way round” ** = knowledge of god comes through faith first, not logic
wtf is a predicate
a quality, property or attribute
simon blackburn
leap to say that something is better in reality than in imagination
- an imaginary camel could be heavier than a real camel
aquinas
you cant speak of god
