Ontological Argument Flashcards
Ontological Definition
if God is greater than anything, he must exist because existing in reality is greater than in our minds
(about the being or existence of God)
Ontological Argument - philosophers
for - Anselm, Descartes and Plantinga
adjustments - Leibniz
criticisms - Hume, Guanilo, Kant ( + Malcoms response)
Descartes
cartesian version of the OA
simpler version of Anselm’s OA
- We have an idea of God
- The idea of god is of a supremely perfect being
- The idea of a supremely perfect being involves the idea of a supremely perfect being existing
- We are obliged to think of God existing (just as we are obliged to think of a triangle having three sides)
- God exists
- god’s essence involves existing
- existence to god is as wingedness is for winged horses, not as existence is to winged horses
- Descartes fifth meditation: there’s nothing ‘clearer’ than the idea of God and his existence
Anselm
anselmian version of the OA
- We have an idea of god
- Our idea of God is of something greater than anything else we could think of
- Either this something exists in our minds or it exists in reality as well
- If this something exists only in our minds then it can’t be ‘something greater then anything else we could think of’
- Therefore, we must think of God as existing
- God exists
- deductive/a priori argument
- perfection is defined as holiness, wisdom and virtue
Leibniz
response - supporting Anselm and Descartes
Leibniz objects that the Anselmian and Cartesian versions of the OA commit a leap of logic, moving from:
- we are to think of God as existing
- God exists
- Leibniz defines perfection as something positive, simple and limitless
- Such a description doesn’t contain an internal contradiction. In believing all of these things about perfection one doesn’t contradict anything in the world.
- So, belief in a perfect God seems possible so the OA can proceed
Plantinga
offers a modal version of the OA - the term ‘modal’ refers to whether something is necessary (has to be) or contingent (happens to be)
- By God we mean a being of maximal greatness
- It’s possible that such a being exists
- This possibility means that such a being must exist in at least one possible world
- God is not necessarily false (false in all possible worlds) because He exists in at least one
- Therefore God is necessarily true (true in all possible worlds)
- God exists in the actual world
Guanilo’s Objection
criticism of the OA
General concern with the OA for God’s existence is that they illegitimately define Him into existence.
Guanilo criticised the OA for allowing anything to be defined into existence: the perfect island is used as an example
Anselm’s Response to Guanilo’s Objection
supporting the OA
Anselm argues that such perfect objects (like an island) are disanalogous to God.
Many theists argue that nothing is analogous to God as
the perfection of God doesn’t consist worldly attributes (e.g size) but instead in respect of virtue and holiness meaning OA can’t be applied to things that make up the word.
Kant
criticism of the OA
Existence isn’t a predicate (aka existence isn’t part of the definition of something)
e.g - a triangle only exists if there’s a shape with three sides, likewise God only exists if there exists a supremely perfect being (if a SPB doesn’t exist nor does God)
Malcolm’s Response to Kant (and Hume)
supporting the OA
contingent truth - something happens to exist
necessary truth - something has to exist
Malcolm argues that Kant is correct when pointing out the contingent existence isn’t a predicate but doesn’t apply to necessary existence, which is a distinct property.
RESPONSES - don’t understand what ‘necessary existence refers to, especially as God is the only thing that possesses it so can’t draw a comparison
Hume’s Criticism
The OA attempts to combine the mutually exclusive categories of Hume’s fork. It claims that the statement ‘God exists’ is analytical and a priori, but existence is a contingent truth. These three characteristics contradict Hume’s fork, as a result the OA is flawed
