Ontological Arguments Flashcards
What is St Anselm’s ontological argument ?
P1. By definition, God is a that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
P2. We can coherently conceive of such a being i.e the concept is coherent
P3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
C1. Therefore, God must exist
You can start with the opposite. If God didn’t exist, we could think of a greater being than God. But it will be a contradiction, because by definition God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. Therefore, God exists
Argument is based on two main premises:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
2. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist just in the mind
What is Descartes’ Ontological argument?
P1. I have a clear and distinct idea of God
P2. The idea of God is the idea of supremely perfect being
P3. A supremely perfect being doesn’t lack any perfections
P4. Existence is a perfection
C1. Therefore, God exists
Existence is a Property for Descartes
What is Norman Malcolm’s Ontological argument?
P1. Either God exists or doesn’t exist
P2. God cannot come into existence or go out of existence
P3. If God exists, God cannot cease to exist
C1. Therefore, If God exists, He MUST EXIST (God’s existence is necessary)
C2. Therefore, If God doesn’t exist, God’s existence is impossible
C3. Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
P4. God’s existence is only impossible if the concept of God is self-contradictory
P5. The concept of God is not self-contradictory
C4. Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible
C5. Therefore, God exists necessarily
This argument avoids Kan’t objection, because Malcolm claims that necessary existence is a logical necessity (feature) of the concept of God — something intrinsic to the definition of the of a maximally great being.
What is Gaunilo’s objection to St Anselm’s ontological argument?
P1. The perfect island is, by definition, greater than which cannot be conceived
P2. We can coherently conceive of such island
P3. It is greater to conceive in reality than to exist only in the mind
C1. Therefore, the island MUST exist
The conclusion of this argument is obviously false.
Gaunilo argues that if Anselm’s arguments was valid, then we could define anything into existence — the perfect shoe, perfect tree etc.
What is Hume’s objection to ontological arguments?
Hume says that ontological arguments reason from the definition of God that God must exist. It is relation of ideas / Analytic truth. “God doesn’t exist” is a contradiction.
Hume argues that we can conceive of a non-existent God. Therefore, it is not a contradiction and not an analytic truth.
P1. If ontological arguments succeed, “God doesn’t exist” is a contradiction
P2. A contradiction cannot be coherently conceived (4-sided triangle)
P3. But “God doesn’t exist” can be coherently conceived
C1. Therefore, “God doesn’t exist” isn’t a contradiction
C2. Therefore, ontological arguments fail
What is Kan’t’s objection to ontological arguments (existence is not a predicate) ?
Kant argues that existence is not a predicate (property) of the thing in the same way as green is a property of grass. Existence cannot be treated as a predicate or perfection that can be “added” to a concept to make it greater.
Kant argues that ‘God exists’ is not an analytic truth, meaning that God’s existence can’t be derived solely from the concept of God. He claims that ‘existence’ doesn’t add anything to the concept. For example, there is no difference between a unicorn and a unicorn that exists. Adding existence to the IDEA doesn’t make unicorns suddenly exist. (Another example — triangle)
When we say “God exists” we don’t mean ‘there is a God and he has a property of existence’. If we did, then when saying “God doesn’t exist” we would mean ‘there is a God and he has a property of non-existence’ — which doesn’t make sense.
What people mean by “God exists” is that “God exists in the world” which can only be proved via (a posteriori) experience. It is a matter of fact.
What are 2 criticisms of Malcolm’s ontological argument?
- We could argue that the concept of God is self-contradictory
- We could also argue that the meaning of ‘necessary’ changes between a premise and a conclusion. Initially Malcom talks about existence as a property that one does or doesn’t have (Malcolm starts with the assumption that God’s existence is a property that could potentially belong to Him). In conclusion, it shifts to to claiming that it’s a NECESSARY TRUTH that God exists (logically impossible for it to be false) — which entirely doesn’t follow the premises.
