The ontological argument Flashcards
in intellectu
exists in the mind
in re
exists in reality
a priori
logic based
deductive
(only deductive argument for the existence of god)
an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion
if the premises hold true the conclusion must be true
anselm’s definiton of god
god is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
the argument
reductio ad absurdum
1) god is perfect in every way imaginable by definition
2) if he exists only in intellectu we could imagine a greater god, one that exists in intellectu and in re
3) this would be a contradiction of the definition of god
4) therefore god must exists in intellectu and in re to be the greatest possible
proslogion 2
anselm
‘the fool hath said in his heart there is no god’
the contradiction of the atheist
god exists by definition so by speaking of god/using the word god you are acknowledging the claim that he exists whilst rejecting it.
jl mackie summed this up ‘the existing such and such does not exist’
reductio ad absurdum
reducing to absurdity
part 2 of anselm’s argument
existence alone is not enough, that would make god the same as us
1) nothing greater than god can be conceived
2) greater to exists as a necessary being than a contingent being
3) if god exists only as a contingent being then a greater being can be imagined: a necessary being
4) this necessary being would be greater than god
5) therefore god must be a necessary being and exist in reality
gaunilo’s criticism of anselm
anselm’s argument fails because the same kind of logic could allow you to conclude that many things exist which do not
e. g. the lost island
1) no greater island can be conceived than the lost island
2) greater to exist in reality than as an idea
3) if it does not exist we can conceive a greater island, one that exists in reality
4) therefore the lost island must exist in reality
the lost island does not exist even though gaunilo’s argument using anselm’s logic has allowed us to conclude that it does.
can we trust anselm’s version?
critic of gaunilo
plantinga
the concept of ttwngcbc does not apply to an island in the same was as god
anselm’s argument only applies to god as her is necessary and the greatest
an island has no intrinsic argument, it can always be improved/added to
descartes
1) defined god as a supremely perfect being
2) therefore posses all perfections
3)includes existence which is a perfection in itself
existence is a predicate of perfection
4) therefore god exists
the argument cannot be applied to objects affected by time and space, only something that is perfect and only god can be perfect
all other arguments to establish the existence of things e.g. gaunilo island try to establish the necessary existence of contingent objects. only an absolute perfect being can have a necessary existence
aquinas criticism of anselm
there is no certainty that the human mind has the correct concept of god, he is beyond human understanding and mere ideas cannot prove existence. even if we do have an idea it is confused.
apriori arguments for god’s existence fail because we know god through his work
are ‘the greatest’ and ‘most perfect’ quantifiable or meaningful? greatness and perfection can always be added to
-ultimate perfect such as god cannot
kant criticism of descartes
existence is not a predicate
the argument rests on a confusion (that a god that exist is greater that one that doesnt)
when people assert that god exists they are not saying there is a god and he possesses the property of existence, if that were the case then when people assert that god does not exist they would be saying that there is a god and he lacks the property of existence, therefore both affirming and denying his existence
to kant, to say something exists is to say that the concept of the thing is exemplified in the world. existence then is not a property but a concept corresponding to something in the world
if existence is not a property this would mean that it is impossible to compare a god that exists to a god that does not because they would be quantitatively identical.
if this is correct then anselm’s claim that an existent god is greater than a non existent is false and neither could be greater
therefore the ontological argument fails.
modern advocates of the ontological argument
plantinga
possible world analysis
possible worlds are ways that the world might have been
any logically consistent description of a world is a possible world
‘to say that something is possible is to say that there is a possible world in which it is actual and to say that something is necessary is to say that in every possible world it is actual’
