Ontological Argument Flashcards
What is anselm’s first ontological argument (with premises and conclusion)?
1 God is the greatest possible being
2 it is greater to exist in the understanding and reality than to just exist in the understanding
3 the greatest possible being, if genuinely the greatest, must exist in both the understanding and the reality otherwise it would be possible to imagine a greater being
4 God must therefore exist in the understanding and in reality
Why is anselm’s second argument better than his first?
The first tells us God is the greatest possible being but provides no explanation as to why he must exist.
The second argument tells us more about God and provides a reason why he must exist - he is necessary
Who does anselm consider “fools”?
People that do not believe in God but understand he is the greatest possible being
If he is the greatest possible being, then he must exist
How does Gaunillo respond to Anselm’s first argument ?
He says that anselm trying to move from the definition of God to the suggestion of his existence is not a valid move.
He uses an example of an island to attempt to undermine anselm’s first argument
1 we can imagine an island which is the most excellent island
2 it is greater to exist in reality and understanding than just understanding
3 therefore the most excellent island must exist in reality
If the existence of this island is doubted then it follows that anselm’s first argument can be doubted
What is Anselm’s response to Gaunillo’s criticism?
He says there is no “intrinsic maximum” and you cannot compare and island to God as what makes an island excellent is subjective and everyone can agree that God is the greatest being.
He then present his second argument
1 God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
2 it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being
3 if God exists only as a contingent being, then a greater God could be imagined
4 God must therefore be a necessary being
5 he must therefore exist in reality
- it is impossible to imagine the greatest possible being as not existing as you would then therefore not be imagining the greatest being
What is Descartes Ontological argument ?
1 God is a supremely perfect being
2 a supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfection a
3 existence is a supreme perfection
4 therefore God, a supremely perfect being, exists
He uses the example of a triangle to support his argument
1- it is necessary for a triangle to have 3 sides
2 - a predicate of a triangle is that all the angles must add up to 180*
This relates to Descartes’ argument as descartes argues that existence is a predicate of a supremely perfect being
Why do you hate Descartes’ shitty little argument ?
It’s FUCKIN stupid
Premise 3 - “existence is a supreme perfection”
Is just not even true
Humans exist, by that logic we possess a “supreme perfection”
What is Leibniz’s addition to Descartes’ argument?
Leibniz identified the problem that the idea of a supremely perfect being may not make sense (as there are classes with its attributes)
He made some rules for what perfection had to be in order for it to make sense
1 perfections must be simple (easy to understand) and positive (tell us what God is like e.g. Omnibenevolent)
3 perfections must be self contained meaning they shouldn’t clash with other attributes
- only if you define a supremely perfect being following these rules can the argument work
- “existence” is simple, positive and self contained so the argument works
Why is Leibniz’s addition to Descartes’ argument absolutely hilarious to you?
Leibniz literally draws attention to the fact that if there are clashes with god’s attributes then the idea of God does not make sense
He lays out rules for what perfection a have to be in order to make sense.
The divine attributes of God do not fit into these rules as the attributes clash.
Therefore according to Leibniz, God would not have these perfections. Therefore the whole idea of God is undermined.
In trying to support the existence of God, Leibniz undermines the whole idea of him.
The attribute that does fit into the categories (existence) is therefore left as the only characteristic of God not undermined. God is then on the same level of supremacy as humanity
How did Hume criticise the ontological argument?
Hume was an empiricist and believed that “matters of fact” we’re the only truths that tell us anything significant about the world.
The ontological argument concludes that God exists which is a matter of fact.
However the evidence is based on “relations of ideas” (god’s definition).
Relations of ideas never tell us anything significant about the world do it is impossible to use them to draw the conclusion that God exists
What is Kant’s first criticism?
The premise “God is a necessary being” is critiqued.
Kant says we can accept that the subject and predicate are inseparable and then deny that there is anything in the world to which the subject refers.
If God exists he must be necessary but that does not mean that God must exist.
He used the example of a unicorn
“If unicorns do exists then they necessarily have horns” but we deny they exist.
What is your problem with Kant’s unicorn example ?
It is not to do with existence!
What is kant’s second criticism ?
He tries to show that existence cannot be part if our definition of God as it is not a property at all
Example
1 idea of 100 quid
2 100 quid in reality
These are worth the same so it is not greater to exist in reality than in just the understanding
Point
- existence cannot be used as a predicate of any concept
This means anselm and Descartes both fail because they both claim that existence is an essential characteristic of God in the same way that omnibenevolence is
What is Norman Malcom’s Ontological Argument??
Malcolm presents 4 possible outcomes of what God can be
His existence can either be continently true Contingently false Necessarily false Or necessarily true
God cannot be contingently true or false as God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”.
If God is contingent then it follows that God could exist and could not exist. If God could not exist then he would not be “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” as a greater version of him could be imagined that exists
God must therefore be necessarily true or false
He cannot be necessarily false as to be necessarily false, something must be logically contradictory.
The idea of God is not contradictory
So God must be necessarily true and must therefore necessity exist
Thoughts on Malcom’s cute argument
It’s shit
Malcolm does not prove that God necessarily exists as he does not prove God’s existence to be logically contradictory.
Gods existence is logically contradictory
I.e. Euthyphro dilemma, problem of evil, etc…
