The ontological argument Flashcards
what is the ontological argument
an argument that argues from the definition of god to the conclusion that he exists
what type of argument is it
a priori: based on the idea of god and not empirical evidence
how does the argument conclude the existence of god
it analyses the concept of god and the ideas contained within it
it analyses propositions about god to see how god is true by definition
once you have defined god then you have no doubts as to whether he exists or not. his existence is NECCESSARY
the premise and conclusion for the existence of god
P1: god is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, transcendent and immanent
p2: god is the creator of all things other than himself
p3: by all of these, we see that god is perfect
CONCLUSION: if god is perfect, then he has to exist.
what does anselms first proof focus on
the idea that god can be defined “than which nothing greater can be concieved”
anselms first proof: premises and conclusion
P1: god is that which no greater can be conceived. everyone, including athiests understand this
P2: therefore, this god exists in AT LEAST our minds
P3: it is greater for god to exist in the mind AND reality, than to exist in the mind alone.
P4: god exists in the mind and in reality as he is “than which nothing greater can be conceived”
CONCLUSION: therefore, god exists
strengths of anselms first proof
successfully uses a priori to prove an argument as it is based on strong logic which all of us, EVEN athiests understand
it is based on unemotional logic and reasoning which we cannot possibly deny, as all humans understand that god is “which nothing greater can be conceived”. shows that the concept of god is not at least completely illogical
weaknesses of anselms first proof
you can define anything is perfect in your mind: does this mean that it exists in reality too?
anselm does not mention neccessity and contingency
what does gaunilo believe
any argument which can be used to demonstrate the existence of a mythical being is absurd (REDUCTIO AD ADSURBUM)
the fact that we can conceive of a mythical being in our minds, it does not imply that it exists in reality
WE HAVE TO PROVE GOD BY FACT AND NOT BE DEFINITION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gaunilos island premises and conclusion
P1: we can imagine an island and conceive it as the best possible one
P2: it is greater to exist in reality than merely in understanding
P3: therefore, the greatest conceivable island must exist in reality
why will some say that gaunilos island analogy is weak?
it does not take into account anselsms second proof which includes neccessity and contingency
what is anselms second proof?
second proof that goes against gaunilos island to demonstrate that god’s existence is necessary and that there is no possibility of god not existing as it would be contradictory
ISLANDS ARE CONTINGENT AND RELY ON OTHER THINGS TO EXIST
anselms second proof preimises and conclusion
P1: god is the greatest possible being
P2: it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being (a being that has to rely on other things for its existence)
P3: if god was a contingent being we can imagine that he would not exist, as a greater being can be imagined that does not have to rely on other things to exist
P4: this being would be greater than God
CONCLUSION: therefore, god is a necessary being
strengths of anselms second proof
he clearly mentions contingent and necessary beings, which we know are a thing
debunks gaunilos island weakness as they are now not mentioning the same thing
what is descartes argument for the ontological argument?
god is a predicate of existence
rationalist: things can be proven by reason (we do not need a posteriori or empirical evidence)
