P1 - Ontological Argument Flashcards
What is a priori
An argument which relies on logical deduction and not on sense experience.
A priori argument is prior to/ before sense experience
What is a deductive argument
An argument where if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true
What does necessary mean (ontological argument)
A necessary truth is a proposition that could not possibly be false
A necessary thing is something that could not possibly have failed to exist
What does contingent mean (ontological argument)
A contingent truth is a proposition that happens to be true but might have been otherwise
A contingent thing is one which does not exist necessarily and so could have failed to exist
What does the term ontological mean
Comes form the Greek word ‘ontos’, meaning ‘essence’, ‘existence’, ‘being’
Anslem’s eleventh-century argument was the first of its kind and continues to resurface in different forms
What is Anslem’s ontological argument based on?
Based on the claim that God’s existence can be deducted from his definition — that once God is correctly defined, there can be no doubt that he exists
Brief summary on what the ontological argument claims
The proposition ‘God exists’ is a priori/ deductive — it can be known to be true without reference to sense experience, just by thinking about god’s nature
In the proposition ‘God exists’, the subject ‘God’ contains the predicate ‘exists’, so God must exist
God existence is a necessary truth, not a contingent one
Reduced version of Anslem’s argument from Proslogium 2
P1. God is the greatest conceivable being
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
C. Therefore, as they greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality
What does Anslem’s describe God as
“… a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”
Guanilo’s criticism - premises and conclusion
P1. It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind
C. Therefore the most perfect and real lost island must exist in reality
Guanilo’s criticism - explanation of his premises and argument
Guanilo used ‘reductio ad absurdum’ to argue (Latin for ‘argument to absurdity’)
He is suggesting in effect that Anslem’s argument can be used to prove the existence of an endless number of perfect objects
We can show that a perfect island does not exist, so Anslem’s argument does not work
Anslem’s reply to Gaunilo - his direct reply in Proslogium 3
“God cannot be conceived not to exist - God is that, which nothing greater can be conceived - that which greater can be conceived not to exist is not God”
Anslem’s reply to Gaunilo - premed is and conclusion
P1. To be perfect, an island would have to be ‘that island than which no greater can be conceived’
P2. This island would have to exist necessarily since a contingent island would be less perfect than an island that existed necessarily
C. Therefore the logic of the perfect island does not apply to God
…Further…
P1. God is the greatest conceivable being
P2. The greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist
C. Therefore, God and God alone, possesses necessary evidence: God cannot not exist
Criticisms from Kant - existence is not a predicate
Existence is not a real predicated because it adds nothing to the concept of a thing
We can imagine God as the greatest conceivable being and all the predicates (omnis), but if we were to then add on that ‘God exists’, it does not add anything to the difference between our concept of God and our concept that God exists
Criticisms from Kant - we can accept the proposition that ‘existing necessarily’ is part of what we mean by ‘God’, but it does not follow from this that God exists in reality
Anslem’s ontological argument claims that the proposition ‘God exists necessarily’ is analytic (true by definition)
- responding to this proposition, I can only know that there is a God by experiencing God through senses, some may claim so but it is a matter of experience, not logic
‘God exists necessarily’ is logically true since it is a definition, but it does not follow that there really is a God
Ontological argument fails as it omits the word ‘if’
“If there is a God, then God will exist necessarily”
Strengths of Anslem’s ontological argument - deductive argument
A deductive argument, so if it succeeds, it is a proof of the existence of God - it does not depend on anything we observe since human observation is not always reliable
With Ontological argument, there is no ambiguity — the argument either succeeds or fails by its logic
Strengths of Anslem’s ontological argument - expression of faith
To those with faith, the Ontological Argument is clearly true, because it is an expression of their faith
Anslem’s never intended the argument to be a proof of God’s existence
Weaknesses of Anslem’s Ontological argument - Kant’s objections
Kant’s objections that:
- existence is not a predicate
- even if ‘existing necessarily’ is part of what we mean by God, it does not follow that God exists in reality
Although Kan’ts objections don’t disprove the existence of God, they make it extremely unlikely that God’s existence can be proved by logic
Strengths of Anslem’s ontological argument - the problem with defining God
Anslem’s starts his argument by defining god as ‘… than that which nothing greater can be conceived…’
Could be argue that any attempt to define God would limit God
So to say that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived is really to say that God has no limitation at all, and that this is indeed a concept that we can understand
Status of Anslem’s argument as ‘proof’ - deductive and analytic
Anslem’s argument is deductive - so if the premises are true, than the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed
A posteriori — claims to be true without having to use any falliable sense experience
Analytic — argues that ‘God exists necessarily is true by definition/ logically true
So if the premises are true, then it is a proof of the existence of God
Is Anslem’s argument proof for the existence of God?
Disputed - some argue it is, some argue it doesn’t
For most scholars, Kant’s objections show that the argument is not a proof: it merely shows that ‘If’ God exists, it exists necessarily
Some argue that it is a proof in Barth’s view, as a faith-based acceptance
Value of Anslem’s argument for religious faith - Barth’s interpretation of Anslem’s argument
It is cast in the form of a prayer rather than a logical proof. It is based on a religious experience in which God released a name to Anslem’s
If we could prove God’s existence by logic, there would be no need for faith or for trust in God
Value of Anslem’s argument for religious faith - views of most Christians
The argument has value for those who believe in God already, since they are more likely to accept it as a logical proof
But many Christians (fideists) would argue that if we could prove God’s existence by logic, faith would loose all its value
