ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Question 1

what is the ontological argument?

Answer 1

• A priori argument- knowledge gained independent of experience
• Uses logical deductive reasoning - starts with a premise and then later makes a conclusion based on this.
• Analytic- studying it’s language.
• Pure logic
• It is valid if it’s conclusions flow from the premise

Question 2

What are some strengths and weaknesses of a priori arguments?

Answer 2

Strengths- God is not a “thing” that exists in the material world- rather transcendent. Many believe that God is outside of time- asiety- and so rather than using physical worldly evidence we should prove it with a mathematical proof.
It is immune to being disproved by science- when it is later discovered. For example, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution weakened the design argument.
Weakness- a priori arguments don’t add to our synthetic knowledge, they just describe the world in a different way.
You cannot use scientific investigation to prove it.
It might not be possible to argue from the unknown to the known- begging the question- circular argument.

Question 3

Who is Anselm of Canterbury

Answer 3

The most significant christian figure of the 11th to 12th century
archbishop of canterbury in 1093
wrote the ontological argument in Proslogion two and three.

Question 4

What was the purpose of the ontological argument?

Who is the fool that Anselm addresses?

Answer 4

It was so that those who believe may have understanding.
“For I do seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand “
The fool is the unbeliever. Psalm 53 the fool says in his heart “there is no God”

Question 5

What is Anselm’s argument in proslogion two?

Give two quotes

Answer 5

“Even a fool, when he hears of a being that which no greater can be conceived, understands what he hears and understands that it is in his understanding”
“For suppose it exists in the understanding alone. Then it can be conceived in reality which is greater”
1) It is a conceptual truth that God is a being that than which no greater can be conceived.
2)God exists as an idea in the mind
3)A being that exists in the mind and reality, all things being equal, is greater than a being that only exists in the mind.
4) If God only exists as an idea in the mind, then we could imagine something greater than God
5) but you cannot imagine something greater than God (this would contradict premise one)
6) therefore, God exists.
This uses reductio ad absurdum-proof be contradiction.

Question 6

What is Anselm’s second argument?

Give a quote

Answer 6

It is found in proslogion three
It does not rely on existence being a predicate.- it deals with necessary existence.
“For it is possible to conceive of a being that cannot be conceived not to exist; this is greater than a being that can be conceived not to exist”
Thought existence may not be deemed a property- so doesn’t make on greater- necessary existence- not having dependence on anything else
1) By definition, we cannot conceive of a being greater than God
2)A being that exists necessarily in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3)If God exists as an idea in the mind, but not necessarily n reality, then we could imagine something greater than God
4)But we cannot understand something greater than God
5)thus, if God exists as an idea in the mind, then he exists necessarily in reality
6) God exists as an idea in the mind
7) therefore, God exists necessarily.

Question 7

Descartes

Answer 7

• He revived Anselm’s argument in the 17th century
• written in his fifth mediation
• It is a contradiction to say that God is a supremely perfect being and say that he lacks existence. Perfection and existence go hand in hand.
• Existence is a predicate of perfection
• “existence can no longer be separated from the essence of God”
• It doesn’t rely on an arbitrary definition of God- rather just that he is perfection- which is a self evident axiom
• He said that existence being a predicate of a perfect being was as logical and self evident as a triangle having three sides.
• He is relying on the medieval tradition that you can know something’s essence independently from it’s existence- which is helpful because He can know God’s essence without having to question his existence.
• He was dubbed the father of modern philosophy- against sceptics who argued that some knowledge is impossible to obtain- through questioning whether something is the mind or reality- one cannot be sure- but you do know that the mind is the constant-God made our minds

Question 8

What is Malcolm’s argument- analogy

Answer 8

He supports Anselm’s second argument and shows that necessary existence is a predicate.
He uses the analogy of the housewife and the fragile dishes.
A set of dishes that were extremely fragile would be inferior to a set of dishes that were not fragile- because the fragile set would depend on someone holding them carefully
dependency= inferiority
indestructability= superiority
criticism- it it hard to see how transworld indestructability would make any difference to a set of plates that are actually indestructible- there is nothing they could do in one world that would be better than another.

Question 9

What is malcolm’s proof in standard form?

How has Kant replied to this?

Answer 9

1)Either God exists or God does not exist
2)God cannot come into or go out of existence
3)If God exists, he cannot cease to exist
4) therefore if God exists, then he exists necessarily
5)If God does not exist then he cannot come into existence
6) therefore if God does not exist then his existence is impossible
7)God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
8) God’s existence is only impossible if the concept of God is self- contradictory
9) The concept of God is not self contradictory
10) Therefore God’s existence is not impossible
11) Therefore, God exists necessarily.
This is a response to Kant’s criticisms that existence is not a predicate- he argues that whilst contingent existence may not be a predicate, necessary existence is.
Kant replied to this by saying that this simply is saying- if God exists, then he exists necessarily- which does not answer the question- it is begging the question- Malcolm replied to this saying God must necessarily exist because he is all loving, knowing etc.

Question 10

What is a weakness of Malcolm’s argument

Answer 10

It only works if God in fact exists

He doesn’t show why premise nine is true- what is his evidence that the concept of God is not self- contradictory?

Question 11

What does Plantigina say about Anselm’s argument?

Answer 11

He argues that argues that it is “downright irritating, it looks too much like a parlour puzzle or word magic”

Question 12

What are the two properties that Plantinga defines?

Answer 12

Maximally excellent- a being is maximally excellent if in one world it is omniscient, omnibenevolent, morally perfect
Maximally great- a being is maximally great if it is maximally excellent in every possible world.
Thus, a being is maximally great if it exists in every possible world. It needs to be shown that a maximally great being could exist in at least one possible world- for it would then follow that they exist in every possible world- which included our own.

Question 13

What is plantinga’s argument in standard form?

Answer 13

1) The concept of a maximally great being is self consistent
2) This means that a maximally great being must exist in one logical possible world
3) There is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
4) If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, then it must exist in every world
5) Therefore a maximally great being exists in our world
6) God exists.

Question 14

Who was Gaunilo of Marmoutier?

Answer 14

Gaunilo was a contemporary on Anselm and he argued that Anselm simply defines things into existence, which can’t be done.
Gaunilo takes Anselm’s argument and uses reductio ad absurdum to show the ludacris nature of the argument - using the idea of a perfect island- a piland.

Question 15

What is Gaunilo’s argument?

Answer 15

“If someone should tell me that there is an island which none greater should be conceived, I should understand his words”
“Since it is more excellent not to exist in the understanding alone, but to exist in the understanding and reality, for this reason it must exist”
1) It is a conceptual truth to speak on an island which no greater can be conceived.
2)A piland exists in the mind as an idea
3)A piland that exists in the mind and reality is greater than a piland that only exists in the mind
4)thus, Thus, if a piland exists only in the mind, then we can imagine something greater than a piland
5) But we cannot imagine something greater than a piland
6)therefore, a piland exists.

Question 16

What is a major weakness to Gaunilo’s criticism?

Answer 16

A weakness to Gaunilo’s criticism is that an island as no intrinsic maximum- qualities that are maximally great and not relative.
An island that is the greatest could be one with an abundance of fruit, or the biggest island, it is relative.
However, in Anselm’s argument, the properties of love, knowledge and power do have intrinsic maximums-perfect power- it is conceptually impossible to do any more than this.

Question 17

What does C.D Broad say as a criticism against gaunilo?

Answer 17

“This is all meaningless verbiage unless there is some intrinsic maximum or upper limit to the possible intensity of every positive property”

Question 18

What does Kant object to?

Answer 18

Kant objects to premise three of Anselm’s argument- that a being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
According to premise three- existence is a great making property which entails two things:
1)existence is a property
2) it makes things better.

Question 19

How does Kant show that existence is not a property?

Answer 19

He argues that existence is not a predicate, it merely affirms the existence of something.
“Merely a copula or judgement”
For example, the “is” in God is omnipotent does not add the quality to the subject- the omnipotence does this. The “is” is the precondition for the instantiation of the property.
In him saying that it is a precondition, he means that existence is needed for something to have a property- a non existent thing cannot have properties.

Question 20

How does Kant argue that existence does not make something better?

Answer 20

He argues that existence is different from, say, a property of lovingness- which other things being equal is better or greater than a being that is not loving.
kant argued for this using the illustration of 100 coins.
He argues that 100 coins that exist in the mind and reality are not greater than 100 coins that exist only in the mind because they have the same worth- existence will not make it any better but merely affirms what it is.

Question 21

How does Kant argue against Descartes?

Answer 21

Firstly by showing that existence is not a predicate.
He argues against the idea that Descartes presents of a triangle. He said that the triangle may not exist at all- if we reject the idea of the three sides then we reject the triangle all together. This shows that if we reject God’s attributes then he does not exist.

Question 22

What did Thomas Aquinas argue in response to Anselm’s argument.

Answer 22

Aquinas argued that the idea of God is self evident- he does not need to be proved using logical deductive reasoning- but can be shown empirically.
“Not everyone who hears this word “God”, understands it to signify something which no greater can be thought”
Some might argue in this response to this criticism that if you replace the word God, with a being that than which no greater can be conceived then the argument still works- and quite naturally you would call this being God.
He also argued that even if everyone shared the same concept of God- it is not that “it signifies actually, but only that it exists mentally”
The concept of God is beyond human understanding.
This is a devastating blow to the ontological argument because it’s most vulnerable position is premise one- then the whole argument falls apart.

Question 23

What was Hume’s argument against the ontological argument?

Answer 23

He uses the character of demea, who is challenging Philo’s skepticism, to show a version of the ontological argument.
1)Everything in existence must have a cause or reason for it’s existence
2)This could either be an infinite chain of causes of the being carries reason for it’s existence in itself (a necessary being)
3) It cannot be an infinite chain of causes because there would be no cause for the entire chain.
4)Therefore, there must be a self causing being, that is, God.
Cleanthes argues that it is impossible to prove matters of fact with a priori arguments
1) If something is proved by a priori, then it’s contrary implies a contradiction 2) But nothing distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction 3) whatever we can imagine existing, we can also imagine not existing. 4) so there is no contradiction.
Even if this argument proves the existence of a necessary being, that does not mean it is God- it could be the material universe.
You cannot talk about an eternal succession of events- because something eternal cannot have a cause- this implies a origin.
The whole thing is built upon a faulty premise- a series of events is not built on a cause- as long as it moves coherently from one stage to another.
Philo adds that the necessary being could just be a law governing nature.

Question 24

How does Bertrand Russel argue against the ontological argument?

Answer 24

He uses reductio ad absurdum- uses santa instead of God. This is a syllogism:
1)men exist in the world
2) santa is a man
3) therefore, santa exists.
However, we know that this is wrong because of the misuse of the word man in the second premise.
Existence is not a property- but an idea of a thing
An intension- to label and define something- the internal content of a term.
Existence is merely an extension of an intension- because the fact that the thing exists only increases it’s range of applicability to the term. It is synthetic and pragmatic.
Although that than which no greater can be conceived is an extension of an intension- because God is the totality of all ideas, but because ideas do not have a physical extension it does not prove that God doesn’t exist.

Question 25

What is a quote by christopher hitchens that criticises the ontological argument?

Answer 25

“what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Question 26

What does Richard Dawkins call the ontological argument?

Answer 26

“logomachist trickery”- criticises it for not using a single piece of data from the real world.

Question 27

What does Mackie argue in his book?

Answer 27

The miracle of theism:
mackie argues that to affirm the existence of God in the way the ontological argument has done is meaningless, because it is both true and false. It is like saying “The present King of France is not bauld”- It’s true but also false because there is not king of france currently.
Using Descartes’s argument, Mackie argue through him saying God does not exist he would be saying “the existing such and such does not exist” - self contradictory
He uses the example of a martian. If you say that a martian is an intelligent creature native to mars- then you can easily argue against this. However, if you add something to the definition, like theists have done with God, then it is impossible- if you add existence to the definition of a martian e.g a real martian (remartian) .

Question 28

What are some strengths of the ontological argument?

Answer 28

• it shows that the concept of God is not illogical- because even non- believers have the concept of God in their minds.
• intellectually stimulating argument
• logical-uses proof- logical deduction and has a clear conclusion
• A response to Russel and kant saying existence is not a predicate is proslogion 3 and Malcolm’s argument about a necessary being.
• descartes uses the self evident imagery of a triangle to show how existence belongs to God- it is clear, distinct and self evident.
• Can affirm thiest’s faiths.
• Gaunilo’s criticism has a weakness- no intrinsic maximum
• Descartes doesn’t rely on a specific definition for God.
• a priori arguments mean that they cannot be weakened by later scientific evidence.
• forces the believer to think carefully about what the term God means
• Plantinga starts with a scientific premise- so avoids existence not being a predicate.

Question 29

what are the weaknesses of the ontological argument?

Answer 29

• It is begging the question- it starts with it’s conclusion in it’s premise
• Some might be skeptical, such as dawkins, because of it’s a priori nature it doesn’t use a single piece of data from the real world to prove that it exists in the real world
• thomas aquinas said that by limiting God to that than which no greater can be conceived then we diminish him to be equal to us- when in reality he is too great to comprehend. Also, not everyone has the same definition for God.
• kant shows how existence is not a predicate.
• Russel, against descartes, showed a clear distinction between essence and existence.
• The argument of response from Anselm in proslogion 3 to Russel and Kant is disputed because the term necessary is a term that can only be used on God so it is unverifiable.
• Kant uses the example of a triangle to show how when you change the fact that it has three sides, it becomes another shape, such as a square, however through taking away existence it is very hard to see how God actually changes.