Ontological argument of Descarte and Malcom Flashcards
Intro
-an argument for the existence of God that utilises a priori knowledge
-deductive reasoning, meaning the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
-introduced by anselm, developed by descarte and malcom
Descartes: innate ideas, concept of God as supremely perfect being
-Descarte discarded all his beliefs except “I think, therefore I am”
-believed that we had innate ideas – ideas that we are born with, those we receive a priori, through pure reason, like mathematical truths.
-One of our innate ideas is that of God – the supremely perfect being.
-“the idea of God… is one which I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number.”
-the supremely perfect being has certain qualities, for example omnipotence and omniscience. Argued that existence itself was an inherent quality of the supremely perfect being
Descartes: analogies of triangles and mountains/valleys
-you cannot separate the concept of existence from the concept of God with two analogies.
-He considers a triangle, concept of a triangle is inseparable from the concept of its angles adding up to 180, you can’t have one without the other.
-example of mountains and valleys – if you have mountains, then by definition you have valleys. A mountain is inseparable from the concept of a valley.
-Applying this to God, the supremely perfect being, the concept of existence is inherent in the concept of the supremely perfect being – you can’t have a supremely perfect being without existence.
-“I cannot think of God except as existing, just as I cannot think of a mountain without a valley.”
-Therefore God exists.
Malcolm: Proslogion 2 and 3, necessary existence is a predicate
-Malcom agrees with Immanuel Kant that existence is not a predicate, and therefore Anselm’s original argument (in Proslogion 2) fails.
-looks to Anselm’s second argument (in Proslogion 3) agreeing with Anselm that necessary existence IS a predicate.
-e.g: it makes sense to say that my future house will be better if it’s insulated than if it’s not (a predicate), doesn’t make sense to say that my future house will be better if it exists than if it doesn’t (showing the term ‘exists’ doesn’t operate like a predicate).
-God’s existence must be necessary
Malcolm: God as unlimited being, existence as necessary
-His argument begins with the definition of God – the unlimited being.
-He then goes through various premises, for example: an unlimited being can neither come into existence nor go out of existence.
-If this is the case then either God exists now necessarily or He doesn’t exist all (and won’t ever exist) i.e. his existence is either necessary or impossible.
-“His existence must either be logically necessary or logically impossible.”
-only way for God’s existence to be impossible, would be if the concept of God is logically self-contradictory.
-the concept of God is not logically self-contradictory, therefore the only option left is that God exists necessarily.
