the ontological argument Flashcards
What argument is the ontological argument?
A priori, deductive, analytic
What is meant by a priori?
Doesn’t require sense experience; only logic/reasoning
What is meant by deductive?
Conclusion has to be true if you agree w the premise
What is meant by analytic?
True by definition
What book did Anselm write the argument in?
Proslogium chapter 2 + 3
What is the fault made by Gaunilo?
Proslogium 3 contains the answer to Gaunilos argument before he wrote the criticism
He made the mistake of reading chapter 2, writing the criticism + not reading chapter 3
What was Anselm’s proslogium more of?
More of a prayer; he never intended to formulate an argument
He already believed in God + wasn’t focused on convincing other ppl
What is Anselm’s definition of God?
A being which that than which nothing greater can be conceived
What does Anselm assume about his definition of God?
Anselm assumes that everyone would agree w this bread def.
Even the fool (atheist) has an idea of God in their head
What are Anselm’s 2 premises + conclusion (simplified)?
P1- God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
P2 - It’s greater to exist in reality than just the imagination/mind
C- Therefore God must exist in reality
What is the analogy of the painter?
- A painter has an image of the painting before he paints it
- When he paints it, he realises the painting now exists in reality
Explain the painting analogy
There’s a diff between a painting existed in the understanding + then understanding the painting to exist in reality
What is Gaunilos objection of the onto arg on ‘behalf of the fool’?
P1 imagine the greatest island
P2 But it would be greater if it was real rather than in the imagination
(G didn’t read Proslogium 3 before writing ‘on behalf’)
What was the conclusion of Gaunilo’s ‘On behalf of the Fool’?
You can’t derive existential claims from the definition
Anselm’s argument can be used to imagine anything into existence
What were the premises + conclusion of Anselm’s Proslogium 3?
P1 - God is that than which nth greater can be conceived
P2 - It’s greater to exist necessarily than contingently
C - God exists necessarily
What does Proslogium 3 mean for Gaunilo’s argument?
Gaunilos analogy is based on a contingent object + doesn’t apply to God
What did Descartes think about the Ontological argument?
Liked the Ontological argument
What did Descartes say about the onto arg?
God has predicates; omnipotence, omnibenelovence etc + EXISTENCE
D says existence is a perfect predicate - God can’t be perfect if he doesn’t exist
What is Kant’s ‘existence isn’t a predicate’ objection?
- Saying smth exists tells us nth about the nature of someone/something
- E.g. of 100 Thalers
What is Kant’s 2nd objection?
- God would have a necessary existence IF God existed
- The onto arg fails bc it omits the word ‘if’
- IF smth exists, then I can accept the definition
What does Kant say is illegitimate?
It’s illegitimate to jump from an analytic statement to an existential statement
Why was Kant’s criticism successful?
No one argued against it
What does Kant say the only way you can prove smth is?
Through experience, not logic
What is the e.g. used for Kants objection?
‘A unicorn is a horse w a horn’ is logically true bc that’s the definition
BUT it doesn’t mean there ARE unicorns
What are the 3 strengths of the Ontological argument?
- Deductive arg; if it succeeds, it’s proof of God
- It’s a true argument to ppl who have faith
- Helps you learn the diff bet synthetic + analytic
What are the 3 weaknesses of the Ontological argument?
- Existence isn’t a predicate
- ‘Existing necessarily’ doesn’t mean existing in realist
- Attempt to define God limits God
- Not many theists are aware of/accept the argument
What about the nature of Anselm’s argument proves the existence of God?
If it’s premises are true, then it does prove the existence
What else is there that shows Anselm’s argument as proof?
Its thought that his argument is just a meditation on the nature of God to assure his monks that their faith was reasonable
What about the argument says its not proof of God?
- Most agree w Kant that it just shows that IF God exists, he exists necessarily
- Gaunilo’s response means he understood it as an attempt to prove God
- Anselm’s preface shows he may have seen it as proof
What shows Anselm’s argument has value for religious faith?
- Works for those who are theists
- Their religious belief is rational
What shows Anselm’s argument has NO value for religious faith?
- If it fails as proof then its value to religious faith is limited
- Fidests reject rational arg to try + prove existence of God
- Barth said God can only be known through revelation, not logic
