Ontological Arguments for God Flashcards
What is an example deductive argument?
Premise 1. All men are mortal,
Premise 2. Socrates is a man,
Conclusion 1. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
A deductive argument are those in which the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion. If the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false.
What is an example inductive argument?
Premise 1. Every raven which I have ever seen is black,
Premise 2. There is another raven in the tree on the other side of the hill,
Conclusion 1. It is likely that that raven is black.
We start an inductive argument with premises we know or believe to be true and then pass to conclusions which are unknown. It is of course possible that the raven is white.
What is an example of an abductive argument?
P1. My wife usually gets home from work at 6pm,
P2. It is now 7pm,
C1. My wife must be stuck in traffic.
Abductive arguments work in the opposite direction. These arguments may be false. In the above example it is possible that my wife is not stuck in traffic.
What type of argument are ontological arguments?
Ontological argument are deductive, in that they aim to be valid arguments such that if the premises are true then so are the conclusions.
What is Anselm’s first proof of God, as found in the Proslogian?
P1. God is the greatest possible being, that no such greater being can be conceived,
P2. Even a ‘fool’ (someone who does not believe in God) can understand this definition of God,
P3. The ‘fool’ says that there is no God in reality,
C1. The ‘fool’, therefore, thinks that God exists only in his understanding,
P4. It is greater to exist in reality and the mind, than simply the mind,
C2. The greatest possible being must, therefore, exist both in the mind and reality,
C3. From the preceding premises therefore: God exists in reality.
What can Anselm’s first proof be boiled down to?
A. God is the greatest possible being,
B. It is greater to exist in reality (and the mind) than simply in the mind.
What is the key reasoning for a God existing in reality being greater than one that does not?
Could think in terms of capacities. Consider a God that does not exist, except in my understanding. This God is not capable of creating the world and carrying out all that He is supposed to have done. On the other hand, a really existing God would be so capable.
How can Gaunilo’s perfect island criticism be summarised?
- We can imagine an island which is the most excellent island,
- It is greater to exist in reality than solely the mind,
- Therefore, this most excellent island must exist.
We can use the jump from ‘greatest possible being’ to ‘must exist in reality’ to define anything into existence by simply adding the affix of ‘greatest’.
What is Aquinas’ criticism of Anselm’s proof?
- Aquinas agreed that certain propositions are self-evident and can thus be known a-priori. However, he goes on to state that to do this we must understand both the subject and the predicate of the proposition,
- Aquinas states that given the infinite nature of God, and the finite, limited nature of our own intellect, it is not possible for us to fully, or adequately, understand God. In particular he claims that we cannot know that God is the greatest possible being,
- Aquinas is claiming that we are not able to really know what this would mean, and hence we are not capable of drawing conclusions from it comfortably,
- If we cannot truly grasp the idea of God in the first place, then it seems difficult to maintain that we could reason about God.
What does Descartes believe of reality in the concept of God?
Descartes thinks that to think of God, we must think of God as existing in a genuine sense. Descartesthinks that existence belongs to the essence of God. Therefore, to subtract the property of existence from God would be like subtracting the property of having three angles from the idea of a triangle.
How can Descartes proof of God be summarised?
P1. I have an idea of God, which is an idea of a perfect being,
P2. A perfect being must have all perfections,
P3. Existence is a perfection,
C1. Therefore, God exists.
What is Hume’s fork?
The distinction between,
1. Matters of fact - these are synthetic propositions which are not true by definition and which must be known a posteriori,
2. Relations of ideas - these are analytic propositions which are true by definition of deduction, where the truths expressed are purely formal, or ‘empty’, as we simply relate concepts or ideas, rather than demonstrating anything concrete, actual, or substantial. They can, therefore, be seen as logical, conceptual truths, but without content (they do not tell us anything about the world, and cannot be used to make existence claims). These are known a priori.
What is a tautology?
A tautology is a statement that is always true by virtue of its structure, meaning it repeats the same idea in different words, making it impossible to be false due to the inherent redundancy within the statement itself; essentially, it says something is ‘what it is’ and provides no new information.
What did Ayer understand relations of ideas to be?
That they are all tautologies, that they could not tell us anything new about the world, stemming as they do from deductions from trivial relations between concepts.
What does Ayer apply to all matters of fact? What is this?
The verification principle
Demands that for the proposition to be meaningful, it must be possible to specify conditions which could verify/confirm or falsify it.
How can Hume’s fork be used to reject ontological proofs of God?
- Ontological proofs of God claim to prove something substantial, namely the existence of something,
- However, such a priori statements could only ever be relations of ideas and thus tautologies,
- Therefore, any proof of God would need to be empirical,
- Ayer would maintain that God was a metaphysical term and hence meaningless; it could not be verified by empirical means.
How does Kant object to ontological proofs of God, point 1?
- Kant claimed that it is possible to accept proposition as true, and yet to deny that that proposition actually refers to anything in the world or really existing in any sense,
- Ontological arguments rely on the concept of God being defined in certain ways (e.g. perfect), such that the arguments take the non-existence of God to fall logically out of the concept/definition,
- We may bring up the statement ‘every bachelor is an unmarried man’ is true by definition, but that does not mean that there exist bachelors,
- Kant thinks that Descartes/Anselm have not proven that God exists, but only that God, if it existed, would exist necessarily.
How does Kant object to ontological proofs of God, point 2?
- Kant denied that we can consider existence as part of the essence of God. Kant denied that existence could even be a property: ‘‘Existence’ is obviously not a real predicate’,
- In example, imagaine a flower and all the properties of it you like, except that of existence. Now try and imagine what difference is made to your idea of the flower when you add the property of existence,
- Kant thinks that this adds nothing to our idea of the object; Kant thinks that for something to be a real property it must enrich our idea of it in some way.
How can Malcolm’s modal ontological argument for God be formalised?
P1. Either God exists or does not exist,
P2. God is a being, greater than which cannot be conceived,
P3. A being greater than which cannot be conceived cannot come into existence or go out of existence,
P4. So, if God exists, God cannot go out of existence,
P5. So if God exists, God’s existence is necessary,
P6. Also, if God does not exist, God cannot begin to exist,
P7. If God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible,
P8. Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible,
P9. God’s existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory,
P10. The concept of God is not self-contradictory,
P11. Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible,
P12. Therefore, God exists necessarily.
What does Hick believe Malcolm confuses?
Hick thinks that Malcolm confuses two different types of logical necessity. Hicks makes a distinction between logical necessity and ontological necessity.
What does Hick say the difference is between logical necessity and ontological necessity?
- Considers logical necessity to be a type of necessity that applies to propositions or statements which are true in virtue of the meanings of the concepts/terms in them. These are Hume’s relations of ideas and Ayer’s tautologies,
- Ontological necessity is radically different. It is a property a being has if it exists independently and eternally. As completely independent, we understand it to not be dependent, hence contingent, on anything else for its existence.
What false reasoning does Hick think Malcolm makes?
- God’s existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary,
- God’s existence is not logically impossible,
- Therefore, God’s existence is ontologically necessary.
