ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY PLANS Flashcards
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Introduction
- The ontological argument is an a priori argument (doesn’t rely on experience as a starting point) that tries to prove God’s existence by examining the definition of what God is like
- This argument was brought about by St Anselm in the 12th century, who developed it into 2 forms, and was refined by Rene Descartes in the 16th century.
- However, both Anselm and Descartes’ arguments are based on the misconception that existence can be proved without empirical evidence and so therefore the ontological argument is unsuccessful in actually proving the existence of God.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 1: Anselm- Part 1
- In “Proslogion 2” Anselm develops his main argument
- He begins by defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”- it is impossible to think of anything with greater value.
- According to Anselm even “the fool” (referenced in Psalm 14) who denies God at least has a concept of God present in the mind
- Once we have a concept of God, we ask, does God exist merely in our understanding or reality as well?
- If God merely existed in the understanding, then we could conceive of an even greater being. Therefore, the greatest conceivable being cannot just exist in the mind only, but in reality, as well
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 1: Anselm- Part 2
- Furthermore, in chapter 3 he seeks to show that God’s existence is necessary. That means he is a being that cannot not exist
- If God is the greatest conceivable being, it would be impossible for him to go out of existence, as a being which could not cease to exist would be greater. And therefore, it would be impossible for God to have previously not existed, as a God who has always existed would be greater.
- Everything but God exists contingently (relying on something else and might not exist) but only God can exist necessarily.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 1: Guanilo
Analogy of a ‘most perfect island’
- If we say we have a concept of the greatest conceivable island- beautiful and fabulous in all respects. Now let us ask does this island exist in the mind only or in reality too?
- According to Guanilo, Anselm’s logic is too absurd because it demands that the island must too exist.
- If the existence of God can be proved in the way Anselm suggests, then the existence of anything can be proved.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 1: Judgement
Ultimately, Anselm believed in God and was reflecting on how self-evident the existence of God was to him. He was not trying to prove God’s existence to someone else who had no such belief and so therefore his version of the argument is unsuccessful in proving the existence of God.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 2: Descartes (Part 1)
- Descartes’ version of the OA is based on the idea that God exists to guarantee what can be known
- He defined God as a “supremely perfect being” so by definition, God must exist because existence is a perfection
- A thing that didn’t exist would by definition not be perfect as the existing version would be more complete. Anything perfect by definition must exist
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 2: Descartes (Part 2)
- Not only a philosopher but a mathematician, Descartes set out to demonstrate the existence of God in his text “Meditations” through the manner of a maths exercise- using an example of a triangle to further his point
- God’s existence is as necessary as a triangle has to have 3 sides- we do not need to establish complex logical proofs that a triangle had 3 sides; it is self-evident. The same logic can be applied to the existence of God.
- In the same way a triangle has 3 sides, Descartes argues that the ‘essence’ of God requires that He exists.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 2: Kant
- 1st point: The statement ‘God does not exist’ is not self contradictory. It’s a statement which may be true or false. Any statement about an object can be self-contradictory, but if the object is held not to exist in the first place then it has no essence to be contradicted
-2nd point: “existence is not a predicate”. This means that in the statement “so and so exists”, the fact that he “exists” adds no real information about him. By talking about so and so we are only assuming that he exists.
- The ontological argument says existence is one of God’s qualities, but it is not really a quality at all.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 2: Judgement
Overall, Descartes’ version of the ontological argument also is unsuccessful in proving the existence of God due to it’s debunking courtesy of Kant as there is nothing contradictory about the statement ‘God does not exist’
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 3: Malcom
- Norman Malcom concludes Anselm’s “Proslogion 3” is more accurate than “Proslogion 2” and focused on Anselm’s 2nd argument which is that God’s existence must be necessary rather than merely possible.
- Malcom argued necessary existence cannot be affected by anything external to itself. It can’t be brought about, it can’t be terminated by anything.
- Therefore, God’s existence is either impossible or necessary because necessary existence cannot be affected by anything beyond itself, so God cannot be made to come into existence.
- For God not to exist is logically absurd- and God as an impossible being is self-contradictory- if he is the most perfect possible thing, he can’t be imaginary because then he wouldn’t be perfect
- THEREFORE GOD EXISTS
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 3: Weaknesses
- We must first accept that God’s existence is different from other kinds of existence. He is necessary and not contingent but why should we do this? Aristotle’s god is mot benevolent or omnipotent so why does his existence need to be necessary
- If you believe in God, this ‘proves’ he exists. However, some theists want to prove that He exists and it doesn’t have to matter if you believe or not.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 3: Judgement
All in all, while Malcom attempts to modernise and improve Anselm’s argument, his version only shows that God’s existence is necessary if he exists and he doesn’t show that God actually exists.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 4: Aquinas (critics)
- Aquinas claims we do not have an agreed definition of God as many have different ideas of God e.g some think God has a body (finds this absurd)
- Aquinas doesn’t consider that we know God’s nature so a real understanding of his nature is impossible to us.
- However, Aquinas holds that if we understood God’s nature, we’d know his nature has to include existence and so therefore the statement ‘God exists’ would be analytic (predicate is included in the subject) but as we don’t know God’s nature, we have to treat it as synthetic (predicate isn’t included in the subject)
- What Aquinas is saying is that, in fact, ‘God exists’ is analytically true, but we cannot know this to be the case and we can only treat it as synthetically true.
- We can, therefore, only argue to God using experience for the basis of his existence as a starting point, not fact.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 4: John Mackie (critic)
- Book: The Miracle of Theism
- Anselm says the fool (atheist) contradicts themselves when they say they don’t believe in God, but when they agree that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
- However, the atheist can avoid being called a fool on Anselm’s terms if they state that they can think of the greater being but disagree with its existence e.g. I can think of a unicorn but it doesn’t mean it exists.
To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Para 4: Murdoch (critic)
- Iris Murdoch argued that the OA may not be objective proof that God exists but it has great value for the person who already believes in God
- For Murdoch, the OA shows us that it is rational to hold such beliefs and it teaches us about our own meta cognitions; it teaches us how to think about how we think
