Reason: Ontological Argument Flashcards
What is the Ontological Argument?
It is an a priori and deductive (the truth of its premise is logically deduced from its argument) argument.
What does Psalm 14:1 say?
“The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” The fool refers to atheists. Anselm uses this to assert that when atheists reject God, they know what they are rejecting. Therefore atheists have a common understanding with theists on what God is.
What is the analogy of the painter used by Anselm?
Anselm uses the analogy of a painter. The painter imagines their painting, so it exists in their mind. Once the painting is painted, it exists in both the painter’s mind and the physical world. Anselm uses this to separate two types of existence: existence in the mind and existence in reality.
How does Anselm argue for the existence of God in his first formulation of the Ontological Argument in “Prologion”?
The definition of God is something of which nothing greater can be conceived.
The atheist understands this as much as the theist.
This means God exists in all minds.
But the definition of God is that he is the greatest possible being.
It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind (you would rather have a million pounds in person than in your mind.)
If God only exists in the mind, there could be a physical being which is greater than him - but then God wouldn’t be the greatest being.
So God must exist in both the mind and reality - thus, God exists.
How does Anselm argue for the existence of God in his second formulation of the Ontological Argument in “Prologion”?
Anselm talks of contingent beings (beings that one can imagine not existing) and beings that cannot not exists (necessary beings).
Necessary beings are better than contingent beings because it is better to need to exist than not need to exist. If God is a necessary being then God cannot not exist, which means God exists.
What is Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument?
Imagine the greatest conceivable, but lost, island somewhere in the ocean. It has all the “riches and delicacies” you could think up.
If you were told to imagine this island, you probably could. It would exist in your mind.
If you were then told that this island must exist because it was in your mind and it is more excellent to exist in reality, you would feel like the island still wasn’t proven to exist.
Thus, the logic of Anselm’s argument falls apart.
What are some other points made by Gaunilo to criticise the ontological argument set forth by Anselm?
- We have many unreal objects in our minds; this is usual.
- We may believe something unreal that somebody tells us - like gossip - but this doesn’t make it true.
- The analogy of the painter doesn’t work because there is a difference between an initial idea and the final product.
- Our understanding of a greatest possible being can be different from person to person.
- You cannot define something into existence.
How does Anselm respond to Gaunilo’s criticisms in “In Reply to Gaunilo”?
Anselm maintains his argument that God is a necessary being and that he exists physically because he exists in the mind as the greatest possible being.
He accuses Gaunilo of misplacing his logic. Anselm was talking about a necessary being, not a contingent being like an island. God is a special case!
He defends the painter analogy as showing the soundness of his logic.
“The being than which a greater is inconceivable must be whatever should be attributed to the divine essence.”
What is a subject and a predicate?
A subject is what a sentence is about and a predicate is a description of it.
“The book is blue”: the “book” is the subject and “blue” is the predicate.
How does Kant criticise the ontological argument in his first objection?
They are bad logic because they make us suppose that if we justify God’s perfection as including existence we are assuming that God exists: it is circular logic.
We can make up an object and define it in any number of ways; it does not make the object exist in reality even if the definition is true.
Basically, if God exists, he necessarily exists. But if he doesn’t exist, he doesn’t necessarily exist.
How does Kant criticise the ontological argument in his second objection?
He does not believe that existence is a determining predicate (it tells us nothing of the nature of the subject.)
He uses the example of 100 thalers. A description of 100 real thalers would be the same as 100 theoretical thalers. The existence of the thalers cannot be defined by a priori reasoning; it can only be defined by the experience of having them.
How could one argue that existence can be a predicate?
In “In Reply to Gaunilo”, Anselm asserts that existence can be a predicate because we are attributing it in divine terms to God - the perfect existence.
Malcolm developed this idea further by saying that contingent existence is different to necessary existence because contingent existence adds no new information whereas necessary existence does, as it shows God to be the special case.
