The Existence of God - ontological argument Flashcards
The quote argument begins with
“and the fool hath said it in his heart there is no God”
who proposed the first ontological argument
Anselm
what is the premise of Anselms arguments
“god is the greatest being that can be conceived of”
Latin word for in reality
de re
Latin word for in the mind
de dicto
Explain Anselm’s first ontological argument
God is the greatest being that can be conceived of
God at least exists in the mind
Things that exist in the mind alone are lesser than things that exist in reality
therefore, God must exist in reality for him to be the greatest possible thing
what is an a priori argument?
An a priori argument is an argument which is derived from reason alone and does not depend on sense experience or observation as a premise. It is usually based instead on a definition or idea.
what is deductive reasoning?
Deductive reasoning only uses logic and reasoning to arrive at a conclusion from the premise. The strength of deductive reasoning is that if the premise is true then the conclusion must be true, however, if the premise can be invalidated then this flaws the logic of the entire argument.
what is an analytical statement?
statements that are true by definition
what does reductio ad absurdum mean and how does anslem use it
reducing to absurdity. if we accept that God exists in the mind and things that are in the mind are lesser than those that exist in reality that would make a toothbrush better than God. This is absurd. and therefore the only logical non absurd conclusion is that he must exist in reality.
what does reductio ad absurdum mean and how does anslem use it
reducing to absurdity. if we accept that God exists in the mind and things that are in the mind are lesser than those that exist in reality that would make a toothbrush better than God. This is absurd. and therefore, the only logical non absurd conclusion is that he must exist in reality.
What is Anselm’s second argument?
God is the greatest being that can be conceived of
he postulates two states of being - a being you can image not existing (contingent) and a being you can not imagine not existing (necessary)
a being you can imagine not existing is lesser than a being you can not imagine not existing
therefore for God to be the most perfect being we mustn’t imagine him not existing so he must exist.
what is the essential claim for anselm
Existence is a predicate of Gods ontos. Gods’ existence becomes self-evident in his being as existence is an essential quality for being the greatest being that can be conceived of.
we know God exists from reflection of his ontos
What was Gaunilos arguments
A response to Anselm ‘on behalf of the fool’ - he asked to image a perfect island even if though it is the most perfect being we can think of that does not mean it exists to think this would be foolish
He used the example of gossip that can exist in the mind but not reality
He is trying to define things into existence
Anselm’s response to Gaunilo
Gaunilo argued that God’s existence was necessary whereas an island’s existence is contingent. Therefore, you cannot compare the two. God’s necessary existence dictates that he cannot fail to exist, whereas an island can fail to exist (has a contingent existence). Anselm is essentially saying that Gaunilo commits a fallacy of composition (it is fallacious to compare an island to God as they are two intrinsically different types of being). There is no intrinsic maximum to the limits of the island but God is maximally great.
Thomas Aquinas argument against Anselm
“Because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us.” He supports arguments from observation (hence his teleological argument and cosmological arguments). He is pointing out that there is a certain level of arrogance in ontological arguments that claim to know the entirety of God. God is transcendent and ultimately a mystery, to claim he can be summed up in a sentence as ‘the greatest being that can be conceived of’ seems somewhat inappropriate.
Clare Jarmys arguments
“The Achilles Heel of all ontological arguments, is the idea that it is not better to exist in reality than in the mind.”
Jarmy demonstrates this in 3 ways:
- Nightmares: “I had a dream the other day that an enormous brown bear crashed through my sitting-room window. I was very pleased to wake up and discover that it was not true. It is clear that it is not always better to exist in reality.”
- Moral/natural evils: “We might think that an imaginary disease or murder would be far better in the mind as being real does not make it better.”
- Criticising Anselm’s use of the painter analogy: “We all have ideas of what our painting will be, and the reality rarely matches the idea.”
what process does Descartes use to ascertain truth
cartesian doubt/methodological scepticism i doubt everything until you come to a conclusion about what cannot be doubted. He doubted his own existence until he concluded that ‘doubt requires a doubter’
what did Descartes establishing his own existence mean?
It validifies the existence of anything in the mind. This means that things in the mind cannot be said to be nothing and thus God has a form of existence
what did Descartes think about our innate belief in God
he thought every person had a natural belief in God due to a trademark left by a creator. We have a knowledge of God that is placed there by himself.
what does Descartes mean by existence is a predicate of perfection
if something only exists in the mind (which we have established God does) this means it is no perfect. Therefore, it mut exist in reality to be perfect. Thus, existence is a property of perfection.
what is Platingas argument
That is, that there exists a multiverse or parallel universes that exist alongside our own. In a multiverse of infinite ‘possible worlds’ there are an infinite number of possibilities, you may exist in a number of these universes perhaps in a slightly different form or circumstance. Plantinga uses such ideas to come up with the ‘Possible Worlds’ argument which uses theoretical physics to revive the ontological argument. The argument is as follows:
1. God is ‘that which no greater being can be conceived’
- God’s existence is not impossible; God exists in some ‘possible world’
- But it is greater to exist in all worlds, not just one.
- Therefore, if God is that which no greater can be conceived of, then he must exist in all possible worlds (including our own).
how does Kant criticise existence as a predicate (1)
- existence is not a real predicate
- we can discuss the properties of something to its existence is something else
- it would require empirical inspection to confirm its existence
- for example, we can imagine a trees roots, branches and leaves but to know its existence we must experience it in the real world
- This illustrates the need for observation and experience to define things into existence, we cannot deny things into existence via logic
- there is a difference between speaking of existence and conceptualising it
evaluate Kants argument (1)
- Anselm wasnt trying to prove Gods existence but demonstrate his faith, Gods existence cannot be so easily understood
- Barth illustrated this further stating that the argument built a spiritual bridge for Christians to connect with God
- God should be a leap of faith not affirmed existence
- Tillich and symbols allowing connection to God
- arguably we can define things out of existence with logic - square circle - so we can define things out of existence
-platinga ontologicl argument - Guanlios island shows the absurdity of defining things into existence
- Humes argument wise man and maybe humes fork
- scientific age comte
Kants argument about definitions of God (2)
- definitions of God are just concepts
- they are not verifiable and do not provide a level of existence
- Descartes even said that because God is an idea he cannot be said to be nothing and therefore exists
- for Kant this is not real existence
- Descartes and Anselm seemingly hold a platonic view of episteme and existence but this is improbable
- we cannot Go from a definition of God to existence
Kants argument about necessary beings (3)
neccesary beings are a concept and cannot be verified
we do not have experience of them and cannot know they exist
theyre are a cupola of judgement - stray from our knowledge
meaning of cupola of judgement
stray from our knowledge
Evaluate kants arguments 2&3
- kant relies too much on observations - descartes this is flawed - reliance on impoverished empiricism
- positivist paradigm is due a shift to logic - thomas kuhn
- aquinas
- ayer verificaion principle and humes fork
- language games only meaningful to the individual
