Ontological Argument Flashcards
What is Anselm’s basic ontological argument for the existence of God?
P1: God is the greatest conceivable being.
P2: It is greater to exist in both the mind and reality than in the mind alone.
P3: God exists in the mind.
C1: Therefore, God exists in reality.
How does Malcolm reinterpret Anselm’s argument in terms of God’s necessary existence?
Malcolm interprets the greatest being as one that is unlimited and not dependent on anything else for existence. God has no limitations that could cause non-existence, meaning God’s existence is necessary. God’s non-existence is impossible because a truly greatest being must contain the impossibility of non-existence.
How does Gaunilo criticize Anselm’s argument using the example of the perfect island?
Gaunilo argues that if Anselm’s logic were valid, it could also prove the existence of absurd things, like a “greatest possible island.” The greatest island would need to exist if existence makes something greater, but this leads to absurd conclusions, suggesting Anselm’s reasoning is flawed.
Why is Gaunilo’s critique of Anselm’s ontological argument considered weak?
Gaunilo’s critique is weak because it conflates contingent and necessary beings. Islands are contingent, dependent on other factors like water or planets. The greatest conceivable island is still contingent, so its existence cannot be proven a priori. God, however, is a necessary being and can be argued to exist by definition, unlike contingent beings.
What is Gaunilo’s critique regarding our ability to understand God, and how does Anselm respond?
Gaunilo claims that God is beyond our understanding, so Anselm cannot claim God exists both in understanding and reality. Anselm responds by saying we don’t need full understanding of God—just an understanding that God is the greatest conceivable being. This understanding is enough to conclude God must exist in reality.
How does Kant argue that existence is not a predicate in his critique of Anselm’s argument?
Kant argues that existence does not function as a predicate because it doesn’t describe the nature of a thing. Saying “the cat exists” doesn’t add to the description of the cat itself. Similarly, saying “God exists” doesn’t enhance God’s greatness, so Anselm is wrong to treat existence as part of God’s definition.
What is Kant’s second, stronger critique of Anselm’s ontological argument?
Kant agrees that necessary existence may be a predicate of God, but this only means that if God exists, then God exists necessarily. The argument doesn’t prove that God actually exists. It’s similar to saying, “if a triangle exists, it must have three sides,” but this doesn’t prove that any triangle exists.
How does Descartes defend the ontological argument against Kant’s critique?
Descartes argues from rational intuition, claiming that God’s existence can be known like the necessity of a triangle having three sides. God’s non-existence is inconceivable because the concept of a supremely perfect being inherently includes existence. Descartes avoids Kant’s critique by rejecting the subject-predicate logic and relying on rationalist intuition.
How does Malcolm defend Anselm’s argument from Kant’s critique about existence as a predicate?
Malcolm argues that Kant’s critique only applies to contingent beings, whose existence depends on external factors. A necessary being, like God, contains the reason for its own existence, making necessary existence a valid predicate for God. Therefore, Anselm’s argument can be valid for necessary beings but not contingent ones.
What is Malcolm’s main argument against Kant’s critique of the ontological argument?
Malcolm argues that it is nonsensical to say a necessary being could possibly not exist. If God is a necessary being, He must exist; there is no “if.” Thus, Kant’s critique fails.
What does Malcolm establish about God’s existence and necessity in relation to Kant’s critique?
Malcolm establishes that if God exists, He exists necessarily because nothing can cause Him to cease existing. However, this only shows that God is a non-dependent being, not that He must exist.
What limitation does Malcolm’s response reveal about the ontological argument?
Malcolm’s argument shows that while God’s necessity indicates non-dependence, it does not prove that God actually exists. The ontological argument cannot establish the actual existence of God, only the nature of His existence if He does exist.
How does Anselm conceptualize existence in his ontological argument?
Anselm posits that existence is integral to the essence of a perfect being. For Anselm, a God that does not exist is contradictory because existence is a necessary attribute of the greatest conceivable being, unlike contingent beings that can exist without their essence.
How did René Descartes build upon Anselm’s argument?
Descartes argued that existence is a clear and distinct idea, integral to the concept of God. He claimed that one cannot rationally conceive of a supremely perfect being without existence, as existence is inherent to the definition of perfection. This view reinforces the necessity of God’s existence as a foundational truth.
How does modal logic contribute to contemporary discussions of the ontological argument?
Modal logic, which examines necessity and possibility, provides a framework to analyze Anselm’s argument rigorously. Philosophers like Alvin Plantinga utilize modal logic to argue for the possibility of a necessary being, suggesting that if it is possible for God to exist, then He must exist in some possible world, and thus in the actual world, reinforcing the validity of the ontological argument.
