Ontological arguments

Question 1

What are ontological arguments

a priori, deductive, analytic

Answer 1

They are:
•A priori (does not rely on experience but reason alone
•Deductive (if premises are accepted as true then conclusion is true)
•Analytic(true by definition alone)
•Arguments for the existence of God

Question 2

Anselm’s point of his first ontological argument

Answer 2

• Anselm’s point is that an imaginary greatest possible being cannot be the greatest possible being
• This is because it is possible to conceive of an even greater being which is one who actually exists
• By comparing these two possibilities we can understand that in order to be genuinely greater:
• One must exist in reality
• A god who did not exist would not be the greatest possible being
• To become the greatest possible being, God must exist
• We can logically deduce God’s existence by analysing what Anselm means from his concept of God
• If God was not the greatest possible being, it would be misunderstanding his true nature and his definition

Question 3

Anselm’s first argument

Answer 3

• God is the greatest possible being
• It is greater to exist in the understanding and in reality rather than understanding alone
• Therefore the greatest possible being (God) must exist in understanding and reality
• We can imagine a powerful being who created the world and is the source of all morality
• However if he is just an idea he cannot be any of these things
• If we imagine the same being that actually exists in reality, then he does in fact have potential to create the world and be the source of all morality

Question 4

Outline Gaunilo’s island criticism

Answer 4

1. We can imagine an island which is the most excellent island
2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the understanding
3. Therefore the most excellent island must exist in reality

Question 5

Gaunilo’s criticism explained

Answer 5

• We can use Anselm’s method to define anything into existence
• This can be done if we claim it has the property of being the ‘greatest’ or ‘most excellent’
• However the real existence of such things is doubtful without further evidence
• E.g we cannot know that the ‘most excellent’ island exists
• Therefore the logic Anselm uses leads to an invalid conclusion
• Using the ontological argument to prove the island existence will be in doubt until real evidence is found
• The fact that the most excellent island exists in my understanding does not necessitate its existence in reality
• This can be applied to Anselm’s argument:
• The fact that the greatest possible being (God) exists in my understanding does not necessitate his existence in reality

Question 6

Outline Anselm’s second argument/reply to Gaunilo

Answer 6

1. God is the greatest possible being
2. It is greater to exist necessarily than contingently
3. Therefore God exist necessarily

Question 7

Anselm’s second argument explained

Answer 7

• The idea of a non-exist greatest possible being is a contradiction
• Gaunilo’s island can be imagined not to exist as we can easily conceive of the sea level rising causing the island to vanish
• In other words, Gaunilo’s island is contingent as it depends on other physical things to exist
• It is logically possible for any physical thing to not exist
• However, no variation in the universe could cause God to not exist as he is not dependent on anything
• Gaunilo suggests that God exists contingently like the island
• However God is a necessary being so by definition he cannot be conceived of as not existing so Gaunilo’s argument fails
• The very nature of the meaning of God entails that me must exist
• Therefore God exists necessarily

Question 8

Outline Descartes ontological argument

Answer 8

1. God is the supremely perfect being
2. A supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfections
3. Existence (like omnipotence,omniscience and supreme goodness) is a supreme perfection
4. Therefore God (a supremely perfect being) exists

Question 9

Descartes ontological argument explained

Answer 9

• Descartes’ argument relies on the definition of God to explain his existence
• Similar to Anselm, he argues that it is more perfect to exist than not to exist
• Therefore existing must be an essential property of the perfect being
• Descartes reinforces the idea that existence is a predicate that belongs to the concept of God
• Therefore we can conclude that ‘God exists’ by definition
• The subject (God) contains all perfections so he must also contain the predicate of existence which is a perfection
• For example a man already contains the predicate animal making the statement ‘a man is an animal’ analytically true

Question 10

Leibniz addition to Descartes’ argument

Answer 10

• Leibniz believes that Descartes’ version of the argument is incomplete
• This is because his argument assumes that the definition of God that contains all perfections as coherent
• We can question the compatibility of his attributes due to criticisms of his coherency
• Leibniz argues that a better understanding of what each perfection means will solve the problem
• He argues that a perfection is ‘a simple quality which is positive and absolute’
• E.g power is a perfection as it is unanalysable, positive and expresses the idea of power without placing limits on power
• This is different to horsepower which express the limited idea of the power of a horse
• If all perfections are simple and positive then they must be compatible
• Nothing about any of them can restrict another perfection
• If all perfections are compatible then they can coexist in one being
• Therefore Descartes’ argument works with these additions

Question 11

Strengths of Anselm’ and Descartes’ ontological arguments

Answer 11

• A clear logical argument is provided to demonstrate God’s existence
• The argument is deductive so if the premises are valid there is certain proof of God
• It is easy to comprehend the concept of God as the greatest being
• It is a priori so there is no need for empirical evidence

Question 12

Aquinas’ criticism of the ontological argument

Answer 12

• We cannot know God self-evidently or a priori as we do not know his essence
• E.g the statement ‘man is an animal’ can be known self-evidently
• This is because we can define the subject ‘man’ and the predicate ‘being an animal’
• Due to our limited understanding as humans, we cannot know or define the nature of God
• Therefore Anselm is overstepping the mark when he claims to know that God is the greatest possible being
• Our minds cannot grasp this idea and our experience cannot prove it
• Therefore the ontological argument fails

Question 13

Kant’s 1st criticism

1.We cannot move from the realm of definition to the realm of reality

Answer 13

1.We cannot move from the realm of definition to the realm of reality
•We can claim that existence is a necessary predicate of God
•However this does not entail his existence
•E.g the proposition ‘unicorns have horns’ is true by definition
•However we cannot entail from this that unicorns exist in reality
•You can deny the idea of the subject and predicate together without contradiction
•We can change the proposition to ‘if unicorns exists, then they necessarily have horns’
•This can be applied to God:
•We can deny that there is a necessarily existing being in reality by denying the subject (God) and the predicate he has (existence)
•We state that ‘if there is a God, then he must necessarily exist’
•Because the statement ‘God exists’ is analytic it only tells us about the definition of the word ‘God’
•This does not tell us about the existence of God in reality
•Therefore we cannot use the definition of God to prove his existence in reality
•Therefore the ontological arguments fail

Question 14

Kant’s 2nd criticism

2.Existence is not a predicate

Answer 14

• Kant argues that existence cannot be a property of God or anything else
• Existence does not add anything to the definition of God
• A genuine predicate should add a descriptive property to the subject
• Therefore a genuine predicate would enrich our concept of the subject
• E.g if we say a piece of paper is pink and scrunched this enriches our understanding of the paper
• If we say the piece of paper exists our understanding of it is not enriched
• Therefore the predicate of existence does not enrich the concept of a subject
• Therefore existence is not a genuine predicate
• Therefore the ontological arguments fail as existence cannot be part of defining God

Question 15

Hume’s criticism of the ontological arguments

Answer 15

• Hume states that you cannot prove existence using reason alone
• Hume argues that you need empirical evidence(based on observation) for God’s existence
• Therefore, a priori arguments must fail
• According to Hume’s fork there are two types of claim:
• Relations of ideas or matters of fact
• Relations of ideas are a priori analytic claims which will always be the case in the world
• E.g a triangle has three sides
• Matters of fact are a posteriori synthetic claims which can only be proven true through experience
• Hume argues that no being’s existence can be established as a priori truth
• The ontological argument fails as it only tells us about the definitions of the words
• It does not tell us about the world itself

Question 16

Russell’s criticism

Answer 16

• There is a difference between surface structure of language and true logical structure
• On the surface statements can appear to be straightforward ‘subject-predicate’ statements
• E.g ‘nothing matters’ involves the subject (nothing) and the predicate (matters)
• However logically, ‘nothing’ cannot be a genuine subject:
• There isn’t anything it refers to
• Similarly the statement ‘God exists’ appears to be a subject-predicate statement on the surface
• However existence is not a genuine logical predicate
• This is because it does not refer to any real property
• E.g ‘a lion exists’ only shows that there is something in the world corresponding to the concept of a lion
• However it does not tell us anything meaningful about the lion
• The statement ‘the lion is fierce’ gives us meaningful information about the lion
• This makes the predicate ‘fierce’ a genuine one
• If existence is not a predicate then it cannot be part of God’s definition
• Therefore the ontological argument fails

Question 17

Malcolm’s ontological argument(intro)

Answer 17

• A priori and deductive
• Responds to Kant’s criticisms that existence is not a predicate
• Uses process of elimination to prove that God necessarily exists

Question 18

Malcolm’s four possibilities

Answer 18

•Malcolm says there are four possibilities for God’s existence:
1.God’s existence is necessarily false
(This means it is logically impossible for any being that has God’s properties to exist )
2.God’s existence is contingently false
(It is possible that a being with the properties of God could exist but there is no such being)
3.God’s existence is contingently true
(It is possible that a being with the properties of God could exist and there is such being)
4.God’s existence is necessarily true
(It is logically necessary that any being with the properties of God exists)

Question 19

Malcolm’s ontological argument

Answer 19

• By definition, God is the greatest possible being
• If he depended on anything else to exist(was contingent) then there would be something greater than him
• This would contradict the definition of God
• Therefore God cannot exist contingently, so possibilities 2 and 3 are dismissed
• Only logically contradictory statements can be logically false
• E.g a married bachelor
• However there is nothing contradictory about God’s existence
• God cannot be necessarily false, so possibility 1 is dismissed
• By definition, necessary existence must be a predicate of the greatest possible being
• Existence may not be a predicate of God but necessary existence is a predicate
• Therefore God’s existence must be necessarily true
• Therefore God exists

Question 20

Platinga’s ontological argument (intro)

Answer 20

• A priori (using reason alone)
• Analytic (true by definition alone)
• Deductive (if premises accepted then conclusion must be accepted)
• Establishes the idea of possible worlds to show the existence of God

Question 21

Outline Platinga’s ontological argument

Answer 21

1.God is the greatest possible being
2.A being that exists in all possible worlds is greater than a being that only exists in some possible wolds
3.There is no logical contradiction in the concept of God as the greatest possible being
4,Therefore God must exist in some possible worlds
5.If God exists in some possible worlds then he must exist in all possible worlds
6.This is because God is the greatest possible being
7.Therefore God must exist in our world too

Question 22

Platinga’s ontological argument point

Answer 22

• Possible worlds are the ways the universe may have been set
• Platinga says there are many different possible worlds
• E.g worlds with unicorns
• Platinga claims that the only worlds that are not possible are ones which are logically contradictory
• E.g there are no possible worlds where squares are round as this would be logically contradictory
• By contrast, there are necessary truths that exist in all possible worlds
• E.g a triangle having 3 sides is possible in all worlds
• The statement ‘God necessarily exists’ is a necessary truth
• Therefore God exists in every possible world
• Therefore God exist in our world