Ontological Argument Critiques Flashcards
Who was Immanuel Kant?
18th Century German philosopher
What is a predicate?
-In philosophy, a predicate is a quality, property, or feature that we say something has
-So when Anselm and Descartes say that existence is a predicate, they mean that existence is a feature or quality that makes something greater—like saying “God is powerful” or “God is wise,” they would also say “God exists.
What were Kant’s critiques of the ontological argument?
-One of Kant’s most influential criticisms of the Ontological Argument is his claim that existence is not a predicate—a point that strikes at the heart of Anselm and Descartes’ reasoning
-Kant also challenges the Ontological Argument by rejecting the idea that existence can be proven through purely analytic reasoning, further weakening the argument’s philosophical foundation
How does Kant argue that existence is not a predicate?
-The Ontological Argument assumes that existence is a quality or property that makes a being greater, so if God lacks existence, He would not be the greatest conceivable being
-However, Kant argues that existence doesn’t function in that way: It doesn’t add anything to the concept of a thing—it simply tells us whether the thing exists or not
-For example, a “hundred real pounds” and a “hundred imagined pounds” both contain the same concept; the only difference is whether they exist in reality
-As Kant states, “being is not a real predicate,” meaning that you cannot prove something exists just by including existence in its definition. -This criticism undermines the Ontological Argument’s logical step from concept to reality
(Link to Gaunilo)
Why did Kant reject the idea that existence can be proven through purely analytic reasoning?
-The Ontological Argument is a priori and deductive—it attempts to demonstrate God’s existence through logic alone, without relying on any experience or observation. -However, Kant argues that we cannot determine whether something exists by examining definitions alone; we must rely on experience to confirm existence
-He asserts that “we cannot go beyond the concept to the existence of the object,” meaning that no matter how perfect or coherent the concept of God may be, it doesn’t automatically prove that God exists in reality
-According to Kant, existence is not something that can be simply built into a definition to make it real
What are Fideist Christians?
-Fideism is the view that faith alone is the proper foundation for belief in God
-Fideist Christians are believers who think that faith should be independent of reason or evidence (they believe that trying to prove God’s existence through logic or science is unnecessary, and even unhelpful)
Why would Fideist Christians support the idea that you can’t use analytical reasoning to prove God’s existence?
-Some fideist Christians—those who believe faith is independent of reason—have also criticised the Ontological Argument for trying to reduce God to a logical formula
-For them, faith in God should come from spiritual experience and divine revelation, not philosophical definitions
-This further highlights the limitations of the Ontological Argument in supporting religious belief, as it appeals to reason in a way that even some theists find unconvincing.
Who was Gaunilo?
A contemporary of St Anselm
What were Gaunilo’s critiques of the ontological argument?
-One of Gaunilo’s key criticisms of the Ontological Argument is that it relies on flawed reasoning—specifically, the idea that something can be defined into existence
-Gaunilo’s critique supports Kant’s is through their shared rejection of the idea that existence can be treated as part of a definition
How did Gaunilo argue Anslem’s critique was flawed?
-As a contemporary of Anselm, Gaunilo challenged the argument by applying the same logic to a different concept: a perfect island -He argued that just because one can imagine the most perfect possible island, it doesn’t follow that it must exist in reality
-He states, “we cannot conceive of this island except as existing,” mimicking Anselm’s logic to highlight its absurdity
-His point is that the argument’s structure can be applied to anything, not just God, which shows that defining something as perfect doesn’t prove it exists
How does Gaunilo’s point about the Island parallel Kant’s?
-This parallels Kant’s later critique, in which he insists that “we cannot go beyond the concept to the existence of the object”
-Both philosophers question the leap from an idea in the mind to something existing in reality
How are Gaunilo and Kant’s ideas similar?
-Gaunilo does not deny the greatness of God, but he questions the method used to prove God’s existence: He argues that just because something is conceived as the greatest or most perfect, it does not mean that it has to exist
-Kant echoes this concern by stating, “existence is not a real predicate,” meaning that existence does not function as a quality that can make something greater
-Both philosophers challenge the core assumption of the Ontological Argument: that existence can be treated like a property or perfection. Gaunilo’s island analogy and Kant’s logical analysis work together to show that defining God as necessarily existing does not prove His existence in reality
- Their critiques reveal a shared philosophical concern—that the Ontological Argument stretches language and logic beyond its proper limits, assuming that what is true in thought must also be true in the external world
-By questioning this leap, both Gaunilo and Kant expose the weaknesses in attempting to use purely rational definitions to ground something as significant as the existence of God
