The Ontological Argument Flashcards
The Ontological Argument
We all understand God, by definition, as a being greater than any other. If we can understand that God is the greatest being, we recognise that there is none greater. The only way that God couldn’t exist would contradict the definition of God (as something else would be the greatest being), so to be the greatest being, by definition, he must exist.
“I believe in order to understand”- St.Anselm
Ontos is Greek for of being.
If God exists in intellectu (in the mind) then he must exist in re (in reality)
The Ontological argument as a priori
The Ontological argument as an a priori argument: is an a priori argument that uses our definitions of terms. It is an analytical argument in that it is an improved understanding of what the premises of the argument mean, rather than knowledge gained from experience (it is true by definition). It is not evidence based.
Another example is this:
P1: bachelors are unmarried men
P2: James is a bachelor
We can conclude that James is an unmarried man.
Deductive arguments
In a deductive argument, true premises lead to a true conclusion. The Ontological argument contains the conclusion that it reaches.
St Anselm
A Benedictine monk and philosopher who was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109 (his death). As a philosopher, he sought for proof for God’s existence which he set out as an ontological argument in his text ‘proslogion’. He developed the ontological argument in 1078.
St Anselm on Psalm 53
The fool understands God to be “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. The fool admits that there is nothing greater than God despite not believing in God. The idea that nothing greater than God exists puts him as the creator of the universe. If the fool defines God as the greatest being, then God must exist otherwise he is not the greatest being.
God as a necessary being and Asiety
God is a necessary being in that he does not rely on anything to exist. Asiety is the idea that God is self sufficient.
Gaunilo
A French Benedictine monk who demonstrated that if we used the logic of the ontological argument in other contexts, it would lead to invalid conclusions. Replacing the word ‘God’ with ‘the greatest island’ leads to an argument which has the same logic as Anselm’s and yet which leads to a false conclusion.
Gaunilos’ reductio ad absurdum argument
Suggests that any argument which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a mythical thing is absurd. The fact that we can conceive of the greatest possible being does not imply that it exists. We have to prove in fact, not by definition.
Reductio ad absurdum
When a challenge is made to an argument by pointing out its absurd logic or by showing how it would lead to ridiculous consequences if the logic were extended.
Gaunilo quotes
“you cannot doubt that this island, more excellent than all lands, actually exists”
“I do not know whom i would regard as the greater fool, me for accepting it or him for supposing that he had proved the existence of this island”
Anselm’s response to Gaunilo
Gaunilo’s objections do not apply to God. An island only has contingent existence (it comes into being through volcanic activity) while God has necessary existence. Everyone can have a different definition of the perfect island but there is only one definition of God.
A being than which no greater can be conceived cannot be imagined not to exist (there has to be a greatest being); this is only applicable to God and not to islands.
The argument can’t be understood by atheists who have failed to understand the full implications of the concept of God
Descartes’ ontological argument
God in terms of a supremely perfect being, having every positive quality in its perfect form, meaning that he must also have perfect existence. Descartes argued that existence was a quality (or predicate) of God and that something that exists in reality must be greater something that only exists in the mind. If we understand God, then it is self-evident that he must exist.
Individually, we know we exist.
We have an innate idea of God as the perfect being.
Existence is a predicate of a perfect being.
Therefore, as all of God’s features are perfect, God exists in the most perfect way.
In Intellectu and In Re (with regards to the ontological argument)
In Intellectu: in the mind
In Re: in reality
God’s definition (in intellectu) requires him to be the greatest being. A being that is great in re as well as in intellectu is greater than that which is only great in intellectu. this means that for the idea of God to meet its definition, God must exist in reality
René Descartes
(1596-1659) Dubbed the father of modern philosophy. Was a hugely influential French philosopher, mathematician scientist and writer. Agreed with the Ontological argument as it doesn’t rely on what he believed to be unreliable empirical evidence.
René Descartes’ analogies
-The triangle: A defining predicate of a triangle is that it has three internal angles that add up to two right-angles. If this weren’t the case, then it would not be a triangle.
-The mountain: We cannot imagine a mountain without a valley (there are some mountains which can be argued not to have valleys such as the Table mountain or Uluru, but perhaps a more accurate translation of what Descartes was saying is that an upward slope also slopes downwards). Having a valley is a predicate of a mountain; the idea of a mountain intrinsically includes the idea of a valley, just as the idea of God intrinsically includes existence.
