Ontological Argument Flashcards
Anselm’s Ontological arguement
- God is the greatest conceivable being.
- Anyone can understand that God is the greatest conceivable being.
- A fool says there is no God in reality.
- He is convinced that God only exists in his understanding, not reality.
- It is GREATER to exist in understanding and reality than merely Justin understanding.
- The greatest conceivable being, if it is genuinely the GREATEST must exist in both understanding and reality.
- Therefore God exists, both in reality and in understanding.
What two aspects are crucial to Anselm?
- His definition of God as the greatest being that can be conceived.
- That it is greater to exist in reality than in understanding.
Working example of Anselm’s argument
Imagine your perfect partner, wouldn’t you rather that they existed in reality than just in your imagination?
Anselm’s understanding of the argument stems from his understanding of God.
By truly analyzing what God means Anselm has come to realise that God must exist, because He is the GREATEST being. Those who deny His existence are not truly understanding the kind of being He is.
Descartes’ version
- God is a supremely perfect being.
- A supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfections.
- Existence is a supreme perfection.
- Therefore God, a supremely perfect being, exists.
What did Descartes rely on?
Descartes relies on the definition of God – as the ‘supremely perfect being’.
Descartes quote
“From the fact I cannot conceive of God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and hence that He really exists.”
Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm
Gaunilo – Anselm’s argument worthy of criticism “on behalf of the fool.” Anselm’s move from God being the greatest conceivable being to Him existing was too big a jump.
E.g. A Unicorn – at some point we have all imagined what it would look like, how it would move, eat and maybe fly. But this does not prove it’s existence.
Gaunilo’s criticism summary
- We can imagine an island which is the greatest conceivable island.
- It is greater to exist in reality than simply in the mind.
- Therefore the greatest conceivable island must exist in reality.
- This shows the floors in the argument as you could apply it to anything.
- Anselm may have put forward an apparently valid but unsound argument.
Anselm’s response to Gaunilo
God cannot be thought of as non-existent.
For God to be ‘God’, by his very nature, it impossible to imagine Him not existing.
Anselm quote
“God cannot be conceived not to exist… That which can be conceived not to exist is not God.”
Aquinas’ criticism of Anselm
Aquinas – rejects the argument in favour of his own Five Ways
Some facts are self-evident, like “man is an animal.” In order to know these facts we must be able to define both the subject (man) and the predicate (animal).
Humans have a limited intellect and it is impossible to understand or define the nature of God. He thought that Anselm was being too bold when he claimed to know the nature of God. If we could understand God then he wouldn’t be the “greatest conceivable being” and his argument would be void.
Aquinas quote
“Because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition, is not self-evident to us.”
Kant’s criticism
- Even if existence is a necessary property of God, it does not mean that God actually exists.
- Existence cannot be a property of God, nor of anything else.
Kant’s first criticism - part 1
It is possible to accept a proposition, where the subject cannot be separated from the predicate – yet deny its actual existence in the world.
Kant’s second criticism
- Wants to destroy the biggest assumption in the argument – that existence is a necessary part of the definition of God.
- He didn’t think that existence was ‘property’ at all.
Kant quote
“Existence is obviously not a real predicate” – Critique of Pure Reason
Russell criticism
- Agrees with Kant that existence is not a real predicate and does not describe the property of the subject.
- To say a lion exists is not adding anything new to the description of the lion.
- “Existence” is a term that informs us that there is something in the world corresponding to a particular description.
- When we say “God exists” then we are simply saying that there is something in the world corresponding to our concept of God.
- In order to show that “God exists” is true then we need to find something in the world corresponding to our description, and this means producing empirical evidence.
Russell quote
“Existence quite definitely is not a predicate”
David Hume criticism 1
He argued that it is not possible to take an idea in one’s mind, apply pure logic to that idea and reach a conclusion based entirely in the external, observable universe.
.
How successful is the ontological argument for faith?
It helps people consider the attributes of God of classical theism. However understanding the word ‘God’ does not turn atheists or agnostics into believers. Faith does that rather than understanding the meaning of a word.
How successful is the ontological argument for faith: Gaunilo
Gaunilo’s argument of the fool demonstrates that an atheists can have understanding of the word God, but not have faith of a being existing in reality.
How successful is the ontological argument for faith: Anselm
Anselm would argue that the argument is taking people beyond the definition of the word God to knowledge of God.
The relationship between faith and reason: Anselm
One key thing to consider is whether or not the argument presents valid reasoning for believing in God’s existence. This raises the question as to whether faith is grounded in reason or reason is governed by faith.
Anselm considered that reason alone can lead to error and therefore it has to be supported by faith as it is only through faith that greater understanding can be achieved.
Anselm quote about faith and reason
“Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so that I can understand.”
The relationship between faith and reason: Russell
Russell suggest that through logical reasoning it appears that a being with necessary existence must exist, but when we consider the argument further, merely having a definition doesn’t make God exist.
Why do Kant and Russell say the argument is weak?
Kant and Russell say the argument is weak as it misuses ‘existence as a predicate. They would consider statements like “God must exist because He is a supremely perfect being” and consider it to be a misleading argument. Thus the argument only works for believers such as Anselm who hold a matter of faith in God’s existence.
Faith may be the only proof: Karl Barth
Karl Barth denies the possibility of attaining knowledge of God through the use of reason. He is a supporter of the views that Anselm’s intention was not to prove the existence of God to the fool, but to offer a prayer of meditation on God as the Supreme Being in whom he has faith.
What does Barth argue?
Barth argues that Anselm’s definition of God is ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’ is not presented at the beginning of the argument for the existence of God but as a description by a believer of what is understood about God within the limits of the human mind
Could the Ontological argument weaken faith?
Anti-realist approach – It holds that truth or falsity of a statement depends not on whether it corresponds to the objective reality of what it describes, but on whether it corresponds to the situation as the person understands it.
Kant’s first criticism part 2
Because a proposition can be true by definition, and the subject cannot be separated from the predicate, we can still deny the existence of the predicate and subject.
Kant’s first criticism part 3
Whilst it is possible to accept the proposition “God necessarily exists” it is possible to deny both the subject and the predicate and say God does not exist.
Kant’s first criticism part 4 and 5
- But we can infer – “If there is a God then He must necessarily exist.”
- We can’t move from concepts to reality like the Ontological argument does.
David Hume criticism 2
He argued that existence cannot be treated as a predicate which something can ‘have’ or ‘not have’, or which can be added or subtracted to something
The Ontological Argument for anti-realists
For anti-realists, the ontological argument has extra force. For members of a religious community that accepts the existence of God, the statement ‘God necessarily exists’ is true by definition.
Anselm’s argument - how does he define God
‘aliquid quo nihil maius possibit’ (that than which nothing greater can be thought)
The first part of Anselm’s argument
God is the greatest being that can be thought, a being that cannot be improved upon. He refers to the fool, the fool says “There is no God”. Anselm sees the absurdity of the fool’s position as there is a contradiction in that the fool (atheist) understands the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being but at the same time rejects the concept of God by denying their existence.
First part of Anselm’s argument - what does he seek to do?
To show that the fool is wrong in saying that God does not exist as anyone who understands what it means to say that God exists must have knowledge of God. Anselm argues that whatever is understood must exist in the understanding, so that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding; even the atheist has this understanding even if they dismiss God’s actual existence.
First part of Anselm’s argument - greater to exist on reality
In arguing that God is ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’, Anselm is stating that if God exists in the mind, then a greater being could exist in the mind and in reality. This being would then be something than which nothing greater can be conceived and would, thus be God. Therefore God must exist
First part of Anselm’s argument - the use of reduction ad absurdum
Anselm is using reason to prove God exists:
1) Suppose God only exists in one’s understanding.
2) Then God could be greater by existing in reality.
3) This means a greater God is possible - one that exists in reality.
The conclusion of the contradiction of the last statement would be absurd
How does Anselm have faith in the existence of God?
He has faith… Through logic, Anselm has demonstrated that the opposite opinion, that God does not exist, would be absurd.
Second part of Anselm’s argument - God is necessary
For God to God there must be more than simply just existing, he thus attempts to demonstrate that God’s existence is necessary. There is no possibility of God not existing, we know that God has necessary existence because:
1) nothing greater can be conceived.
2) to be though not to exist would be inferior to thinking of something that must always exist.
3) God must therefore necessarily exist.
Descartes’ Ontological argument - Cogito ergo sum
Began by seeking to prove what we can be certain of in the universe, what we can know for sure. He concluded his own existence through his ability to think “I think therefore I am”. However he cannot prove the existence of others. He concluded that the only things he could prove exist are a priori things such as mathematics.
The first part of Descartes argument - God as an idea in the mind
God exists as an idea in the mind and God has a distinct definition “supremely perfect being” - defined existence as one of God’s many perfections, he is relying on what he believes is an innate idea that everyone possesses. God’s necessary existence is contained within our understanding as God as the “supremely perfect being”
First part of Descartes’ argument - humans as imperfect beings
As imperfect beings, Descartes believes that humans cannot develop the idea of a perfect being themselves. Therefore the idea must have come from the perfect Himself, thus God must exist.
Descartes quote about innate understanding of God’s existence
“Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence… we must conclude that God necessarily exists.”
Second part of Descartes’ argument - existence is a predicate from God.
Existence is a predicate of God, as a most perfect being, God must possess existence, other God is not perfect - the very essence of God includes existence. Therefore God must exist in reality or God would not be perfect and this would go against the definition of God, which is absurd. Trying to imagine God without existence is illogical and would be like trying to imagine a triangle without 3 sides.
Descartes quote about existence being a predicate of God
“Existence is a part of the concept of a perfect being”
Significance of the argument for the believer
Could help develop a believes understanding of God. This could strengthen a person’s relationship with God, perhaps giving further reason to praise God.
Gottlob Frege and first/second order predicates
First order predicates tell us something about the nature of concepts are apply directly to objects themselves. Second order predicates apply only to first order concepts and not to objects themselves. Frege concludes that existence is not a first-order predicate, as it does not tell us about the nature of something. As a second order predicate it does not add anything to our understanding of the concept. He thus concludes that existence cant be used as a predicate for God’s existence.
Norman Malcolm - a development of the necessary existence of God
He could not support Anselm’s first argument because it is not valid, as existence is not a characteristic. However he supported his second argument because:
1) The concept of God is the concept of a being whose existence is necessary.
2) It is not possible to think of a being that necessarily exists not existing.
3) Thus, God must exist.
Plantinga - Possible worlds
Eg. In our world JFK was an American president who was assassinated , however this was not necessarily so; he could have made a different career choice and became an estate agent. In each possible world you have to consider the above, there will be many differences. That is the whole point of this notion; the possibilities are infinite.
Plantinga - maximal greatness
He offers the description of another possible world:
1) there is a possible world , in which a being with ‘maximal greatness’ lives
2) a being has maximal greatness if they live in all possible worlds.
In every possible world there must be a being of ‘maximal greatness’
Plantinga - maximal excellence
He further suggests the concept of ‘maximal excellence’.
He states that: 1) Maximal greatness entails maximal excellence, maximal excellence entails omnipotence and moral perfection.
Plantinga challenge to Gaunilo’s criticism
Islands are contingent whereas God is eternal and islands do not have ‘intrinsic maximum’.
Charles Hartshorne - whether existence is a property
He said that philosophers ignore one aspect on Anselm’s argument, he considers that Anselm uses ‘existence’ differently in his two arguments - existence is not always a property, but that does not mean never. When applied to the necessary existence of God, it is a property.
