Ontological Arguments (god) Flashcards
What does ontology mean
‘Ont’ -> being
So, ontology is the study of being.
Attempt deduce the existence of God from the concept of God (just by thinking about what God is, we can conclude God must exist) - a priori arguments
Evaluating deductive arguments (2)
(A). Valid : when the premises guarantee the conclusion
EG -> P1: all dogs are fish P2: Felix is a dog C: Felix is a fish.
(B). Sound : If the argument is valid and the premises are true then then the argument is sound.
The argument in part (a) is valid, but not sound as the premises are not true.
EG -> P1: all men are mortal P2: Socrates is a man C: Socrates is mortal.
Anselm’s Ontological argument + DEF of god
P1: By definition, God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived.
P2: We can coherently conceive of such a being so the concept of God is coherent (ie an atheist can conceive of God as the greatest possible being as to deny the existence, they must understand the concept).
P3: It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
C1: Therefore, God must exist in reality.
“A being than which nothing greater can be conceived “ -> essentially, the best possible thing you can think of - if you can improve your idea of god, then that improved idea must be god.
Why is Anselm’s ontological argument convincing
Convincing because …
1) intuitive -> we believe that god is the greatest being
2) coherent with substance dualisms conceivability argument/ leibniz’ law; i can conceive of god so metaphysically possible he exists
3) Valid, and if sound, seems to prove beyond doubt that God exists.
Why is Anselm’s ontological argument unconvincing (weaker objections)
Unconvincing because…
1) one cannot prove the existence of something without empirical evidence/ a posteriori premises (incoherent with science)
2) relies on the concept of God being coherent (but is it - inconsistent triad/problem of evil etc)
3) It is not always better for something to exist in reality >mind (eg shark nado, murder etc)
Explain Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ objection (con of anselm’s arg)
P1: By definition, the perfect island is an island greater than which cannot be conceived.
P2: We can coherently conceive of such an island - the concept of a perfect island is coherent.
P3: It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
C1: Therefore, the perfect island must exist.
Reductio ad absurdum arg: Where one takes an argument and shows it leads to an absurd conclusion, suggesting the existence of false premises or inferences.
= St Anselm claims that by conceiving of the greatest version of a thing, it can lead to deducing its necessary existence BUT Gaunilo claims we cannot build ‘conceptual bridges’ to the real, it’s absurd.
Anselm’s response to Gaunilo’s objection + Kant’s response
The argument only works for God.
God necessarily has to be the greatest being or else wouldn’t be God.
There is no such necessity with the greatest conceivable islands since their existence could only be contingent (you can always imagine better -> more palm trees, whiter sand).
Kant’s response:
= (Necessary) existence could never function as a predicate (a property of God)
distinction between a predicate and a subject
Predicate: properties that are possessed by the subject
Subject: the thing the statement is about
= God must exist necessarily as existence is a predicate of God (subject).
Descartes ontological argument
P1: I have the idea of a God a priori
P2: This idea is of a supremely perfect being.
P3: A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection.
P4: Existence is a perfection.
C: Therefore, God exists.
Descartes asks himself whether it is possible to separate the existence of such a god from god’s essence. ->concludes that it is not.
In the same way that…
1) ‘mountain’ is inseparable fro the idea of ‘valley’
2) ‘triangle’ is inseparable from the idea of ‘internal angels adding to 180’
3) God’ is inseparable from the idea of ‘existence’
= it is not possible to conceive of God as not existing (existence is part of the concept of god - a predicate).
- ‘god exists’ = a tautology (true by def) -> opposite is a contradiction
- gods existence is necessary = as existence is a predicate and it is impossible to imagine god as not existing.
Reasons why Descartes’ ontological argument may be convincing
1) Valid, and if sound, proves the existence of God beyond doubt.
2) If right, Existence is built into God’s nature (cannot separate the two without contradiction).
-> eg triangle and mountain example
Empiricist objections of Descartes ONT Arg (a priori idea of God)
A) Humes’ fork
B) Humes’ copy principle
C) Lock’s universal assent
D) Cartesian circle
A) Humes’ fork
= God is not true analytically as God not existing is not a logical contradiction
B) Humes’ copy principle
= Cannot have an impression of God, never experience god. Therefore, no idea of God.
C) Lock’s universal assent
= Idiots do not have an understanding of God, therefore possible not to conceive of God so God does not exist in all minds.
D) Cartesian circle
= We have an idea of God, derived from God, and God is the only thing that can give us the idea (circular def)
How do Anselm + Descartes claim existence is a predicate of the concept of God?
Anselm -> claims that since it is greater to exist in reality>mind, God is the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, God must possess existence (as a predicate).
Descartes -> since God is supremely perfect and existence is perfect, God must possess existence.
Kant’s objection (existence is not a predicate)
-> used against Descartes and st Anselm
P1: If ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction, then ‘God exists’ is an analytic truth, and existence is part of the concept of God.
P2: Existence is not a predicate; something that can be added onto another concept.
C1: Therefore, existence is not part of the concept of God, and ‘God exists’ is not an analytic truth.
C2: ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction.
C3: Therefore, we cannot deduce the existence of God from the concept of God, and ontological arguments fail to prove God exists.
-> Existence claims always require experience to determine whether they are true – they are always synthetic propositions.
LINk to P2: A genuine predicate adds to our conception of a subject, and helps to determine it. Existence does not add to our conception of a subject, or help to determine it. Therefore, existence is not a genuine predicate.
Example-> Consider 100 real coins and 100 possible coins. Our concept of 100 actual coins is identical to our concept of 100 and non actual coins. When I say “100 coins exist”, I am not identifying any new property of the coin. In contrast, if I say “100 coins are round” or “100 coins are covered in pink antitheft paint” then our picture of those coins changes because both of these identify a genuine property.
Therefore, if existence is not a property of anything, then those ontological arguments contain a false premise, which means the arguments are unsound, and they fail.
Distinction between necessary existence and contingent existence?
Necessary -> an entity MUST exist and is a logical contradiction fort it not to.
Contingent -> an entity MAY or MAY NOT exist and so it is not a contradiction for it not to exist.
Malcom’s Ontological argument
P1: Either God exists or God does not exist.
P2: God cannot come into or out of existence.
C1: If God exists, God cannot cease to exist - God must exist necessarily.
C2: If God does not exist, God cannot come into existence - God’s existence is impossible.
C3: Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible.
P3: God’s existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory.
P4: The concept of God is not self contradictory.
C4: Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible, and God must exist necessarily.
= Malcom accepts Kant’s objection that existence cannot be a predicate, but tried to avoid it by defining God’s existence as logically necessary or logically impossible. Necessary existence means that God must exist as it is a logical contradiction to deny it, contrasted to a contingent existence (may exist).
