The Ontological Argument (Reason) Flashcards
What is the Ontological Argument?
The Ontological Argument is the argument that God, defined as the most perfect or greatest being, must exist because a being that exists is greater than one that does not.
What is a Deductive Argument?
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises – if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
What is a Premise?
A premise is a statement in an argument that leads to a logical conclusion. It is the foundation upon which the argument builds.
What is the Proslogion?
The Proslogion is a prayer or meditation written by Anselm of Canterbury, focusing on the attributes of God.
What is a Predicate?
A predicate is a quality or property attributed to something. For example, in “Jack is intelligent,” the predicate is “intelligent.”
What is an Analytic Statement?
An analytic statement is true by definition. For example, “a bachelor is an unmarried man” is true by the meaning of the terms involved.
What is a Synthetic Statement?
A synthetic statement is one where the truth needs to be proven or tested. For example, “It always rains on Mondays” needs empirical evidence to confirm its truth.
Who was Anselm of Canterbury?
Anselm of Canterbury was a Christian thinker who put forward the most famous version of the ontological argument, referring to God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
Who was Rene Descartes?
Rene Descartes was a French philosopher and mathematician who described God as a “supremely perfect being” in his version of the ontological argument.
Who was David Hume?
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher and prominent atheist who challenged the teleological, cosmological, and ontological arguments.
Who was Immanuel Kant?
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who challenged the logic of the cosmological argument, emphasizing that existence is not a predicate.
Who was Gaunilo of Marmoutier?
Gaunilo of Marmoutier was a Benedictine monk best known for criticizing Anselm’s ontological argument, particularly through his analogy of the “perfect island.”
What is the Ontological Argument?
The Ontological Argument is a deductive, a priori argument for the existence of God, first formulated by St. Anselm. It claims that God must exist because, by definition, God is the greatest conceivable being, and a being that exists is greater than one that does not.
What is a Deductive Argument?
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.
What does “A Priori” mean?
“A Priori” refers to knowledge or reasoning that is independent of experience or external evidence. It is based on logic or definition alone.
What is Anselm’s First Ontological Argument?
Anselm’s first argument suggests that God, defined as “the greatest conceivable being,” must exist because it is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind. If God existed only as an idea, then a greater being could be imagined that exists both in the mind and in reality.
What is the flow of Anselm’s First Ontological Argument?
1) God is the greatest possible being.
2) If God exists only in the mind, then a greater being could be conceived to exist both in the mind and in reality.
3) This being would be greater than God.
4) Therefore, God cannot exist only as an idea.
5) God must exist in both the mind and in reality.
What was Gaunilo’s Critique of Anselm’s Argument?
Gaunilo argued that Anselm’s logic could lead to absurd conclusions. For example, one could think of a perfect island and claim that it must exist in reality, simply because it is the most perfect island conceivable. Gaunilo criticized the leap from existence in the mind to existence in reality.
What is Gaunilo’s Perfect Island Example?
Gaunilo argued that if Anselm’s argument worked, one could imagine a perfect island in the mind, and then, according to Anselm’s reasoning, that island must exist in reality because it’s the “most perfect” island. This leads to an absurd conclusion, as no perfect island actually exists.
What is Anselm’s Second Ontological Argument?
In response to Gaunilo, Anselm refined his argument by introducing the concept of necessary existence. Anselm argued that God must have necessary existence (existence that cannot fail to be) rather than contingent existence (existence that could fail), as necessary existence is greater. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
How does Anselm’s Second Argument differ from the first?
The second argument introduces the idea of necessary existence. It states that if God exists only contingently (and could possibly not exist), then a greater being, with necessary existence, could be imagined. Therefore, God must be a necessary being and exist in reality.
What is Necessary Existence?
Necessary existence is existence that cannot fail to be. It is the quality of a being that must exist, as opposed to contingent existence, where existence is dependent on external factors and could potentially not exist.
What is Contingent Existence?
Contingent existence refers to existence that is dependent on something else. A being with contingent existence could fail to exist.
What is the Key Difference between Necessary and Contingent Existence?
Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence because a necessary being must exist, whereas a contingent being’s existence could fail.
What is Descartes’ version of the Ontological Argument?
Descartes’ Ontological Argument is a simple reasoning that God’s existence is inseparable from the very concept of God. Since God is a supremely perfect being and existence is a perfection, God must exist.
What is the first formulation of Descartes’ argument?
- The idea of God contains the idea of existence (existence is a predicate of God).
- Therefore, God must exist (God’s existence is necessary).
What is the second formulation of Descartes’ argument?
- God is a supremely perfect being.
- Existence is a perfection (a predicate of perfection).
- Therefore, God must exist.
What is the concept of ‘predicate’?
A predicate is a quality or property ascribed to a subject. For example, in “Jack is intelligent,” “intelligent” is the predicate of Jack.
How does Descartes apply the concept of a predicate to God’s existence?
Descartes argues that existence is a necessary predicate of God, just as the number of sides is inseparable from the definition of a triangle. If you can conceive of a triangle, you must conceive of it as having three sides. Similarly, to conceive of God is to conceive of a being that exists, as existence is inseparable from the idea of God.
What example does Descartes use to illustrate his argument?
Descartes uses the example of a triangle, stating that just as you cannot think of a triangle without thinking of it as having three sides, you cannot think of God without thinking of God’s existence.
What is Kant’s main criticism of the Ontological Argument?
Kant’s main criticism is that existence is not a predicate (quality or property) in the same way as other qualities like “red” or “large.” Adding existence to the concept of something does not change the nature of that thing.
What does Kant mean by ‘existence is not a real predicate’?
Kant argues that existence is not a quality or characteristic that can be added to a concept. For example, if you imagine 200 pounds existing and 200 pounds imagined, the idea of “pound” is the same whether the pounds exist or not.
How does Kant challenge the argument with the custard doughnut example?
Kant explains that you can imagine a doughnut with all its qualities (texture, creaminess) and yet, adding the word “exists” does not change the concept of the doughnut itself. Existence adds nothing to the idea of the doughnut.
How does Kant object to Descartes’ triangle analogy?
Kant disagrees with Descartes’ claim that denying God’s existence is like denying that triangles have three sides. He argues that one can define a concept in any way, but the real question is whether something in reality matches that definition. Denying a definition doesn’t necessarily create a contradiction if the object in question doesn’t exist.
What is the main flaw Kant sees in Descartes’ use of the predicate ‘existence’?
Kant argues that existence does not act as a predicate because it doesn’t add any new information about a concept. For example, saying that something “exists” doesn’t provide any additional characteristics or properties about that thing.
What is Immanuel Kant’s argument about existence as a predicate?
Kant argues that existence is not a predicate. He believes that adding “existence” to a concept does not add any new information or description to that concept. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to say that God’s existence is part of his definition.
Why does Kant believe the ontological argument is based on a mistake?
Kant argues that if God’s necessary existence is considered an analytic statement, it tells us nothing about whether God actually exists. This leads to an absurdity because existence as a predicate doesn’t enhance the understanding of the concept.
What is the ‘two-types-of-statement’ argument against existence as a predicate?
Kant suggests that rejecting the existence of a triangle would create a contradiction because the definition of a triangle involves three sides. However, rejecting the concept of God does not lead to a contradiction because you can define something without saying it exists.
What is David Hume’s objection to the ontological argument?
Hume argued that existential statements are synthetic, not analytic. Thinking about God in the mind and thinking about God existing in reality are not the same thing. Hume believes that thinking about God does not provide proof for his existence.
What is Bertrand Russell’s criticism of existence as a predicate?
Russell argued that existence cannot be a predicate. If it were, we could claim that “Santa Claus exists” based on the fact that Santa Claus is a man, which is logically incorrect. Existence doesn’t automatically apply just by naming something.
How does René Descartes defend existence as a predicate for God?
Descartes argued that God must possess existence to be perfect. He believed that existence is a necessary part of God’s perfection, just as thinking about a triangle without three sides is illogical. Existence is a part of the concept of perfection.
What analogy does Descartes use to explain existence as a predicate?
Descartes compares existence to the sides of a triangle or a valley with a mountain. Just as a triangle must have three sides, thinking of God without existence is equally illogical because existence is part of the concept of perfection.
What is Stephen Davis’ argument in favor of existence as a predicate?
Davis argues that Kant could not conclusively prove that existence is not a predicate. He uses the example of the Loch Ness Monster and how his concept of it would change if he believed it existed. He argues that things that exist in reality are greater than if they only exist in the mind.
What example does Stephen Davis use to defend existence as a predicate?
Davis compares the concept of “hundred silver coins” with “hundred imaginary coins.” He says the real coins have purchasing power in the real world, which makes their existence greater than if they existed only in the mind.
How does Stephen Davis challenge Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument?
Davis believes Kant’s criticism does not refute the ontological argument because existence in reality adds something essential to the concept, making it greater than just existing in the mind.
What is the strength of the Ontological Argument in justifying belief in God?
The strength lies in its use of a priori reasoning to prove God’s existence. Since it’s a deductive argument, if the premises are true and the logic is sound, it provides certain proof that God exists.
Why is the Ontological Argument considered successful by some philosophers?
It is seen as successful because it defines God in a way that aligns with traditional views of the Christian God. Anselm’s definition incorporates key attributes of God such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
Why are a priori arguments considered stronger than a posteriori arguments by some philosophers?
A priori arguments are considered stronger because they are based on logic and reasoning rather than experience. A posteriori arguments rely on evidence, which is seen as fallible, whereas a priori arguments provide certainty with no alternative conclusions.
Why does Aquinas reject the Ontological Argument?
Aquinas rejects the argument because it is based on a priori reasoning, which he believes is inadequate for proving God’s existence. He holds that God can only be known through a posteriori arguments based on experience and evidence.
What was Aquinas’ criticism of the definition of God used in the Ontological Argument?
Aquinas argued that to define God implies we have an understanding of Him. However, since God is beyond human comprehension, it is impossible to fully define God, making the Ontological Argument’s first premise flawed.
How does Alvin Plantinga critique the Ontological Argument?
Plantinga suggests that the argument cannot prove God’s existence to people who do not have a proper understanding of God. He compares it to explaining the color red to a blind person, arguing that someone who doesn’t have the concept of God cannot accept the argument as proof of God’s existence.
Why do Empiricists reject the Ontological Argument?
Empiricists reject the argument because it is not based on experience or evidence, which they consider essential for knowledge. They believe that conclusions drawn from experience are more reliable than those based purely on reason without empirical evidence.
What analogy does Plantinga use to explain the limitations of the Ontological Argument?
Plantinga uses the analogy of explaining the color red to a blind person. He argues that people without the necessary understanding of God, just as a blind person lacks the concept of color, cannot accept the Ontological Argument as a valid proof of God’s existence.
How does the Ontological Argument claim to provide proof of God’s existence?
The Ontological Argument claims to prove God’s existence by starting with a definition of God as the greatest possible being. It argues that existence is part of the concept of God, and thus, God must exist in reality for the definition to be coherent.
What do some philosophers argue is a limitation of the Ontological Argument?
Some philosophers argue that the Ontological Argument cannot provide belief in God to everyone because not everyone has the same understanding of God. For those who cannot imagine or comprehend God, the argument cannot serve as a proof.
What type of argument is the Ontological Argument?
The Ontological Argument is a deductive and a priori argument, meaning the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and does not rely on experience or evidence.
Who is the scholar mainly associated with the Ontological Argument?
The scholar mainly associated with the Ontological Argument is St. Anselm of Canterbury.
What was Anselm’s definition of God?
Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This definition forms the basis of his argument.
Where can Anselm’s arguments be found?
Anselm’s arguments are found in his prayer and meditation called the Proslogion.
What are the two parts of Anselm’s argument?
The first argument is based on the definition of God, and the second is based on God’s necessary existence.
How did Descartes build upon Anselm’s argument?
Descartes expanded on Anselm’s Ontological Argument by describing God as a ‘supremely perfect being’.
Why is the Ontological Argument considered dependable by some philosophers?
The Ontological Argument is considered dependable because it is a deductive a priori argument, and a priori arguments provide certain proofs with no alternative conclusions, unlike a posteriori proofs, which are only highly probable.
What does Anselm believe is contained in the expression ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’?
Anselm believes that all the main attributes of the Christian God, including omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, are contained in this expression.
Why do some philosophers prefer a priori arguments over a posteriori arguments?
A priori arguments are seen as more dependable because they are based on logical reasoning and provide certainty, while a posteriori arguments are only probable and rely on potentially unreliable experience.
What do Empiricists believe about the Ontological Argument?
Empiricists reject the Ontological Argument because they insist that all arguments must be based on experience and evidence.
What was Aquinas’ criticism of the Ontological Argument’s first premise?
Aquinas rejected the first premise, the definition of God, arguing that God is beyond human understanding and cannot be fully defined.
How does Alvin Plantinga critique the Ontological Argument?
Plantinga argues that the Ontological Argument cannot prove God’s existence to people who lack the necessary understanding of God. He uses the analogy of blindness, where one cannot prove the color of a dress to a blind person because they lack the concept of color.
What is the analogy Plantinga uses to explain why the Ontological Argument cannot prove God’s existence to everyone?
Plantinga uses the analogy of blindness: just as you cannot prove the color of a dress to someone who is blind, you cannot prove the existence of God to someone who does not have the concept of God.
What makes ‘a priori’ arguments true by definition?
A priori arguments are true by definition, as they rely on concepts whose truth is inherent. For example, “All bachelors are unmarried” is true by the definition of a bachelor. Strength
Why are ‘a posteriori’ arguments considered strong?
A posteriori arguments are based on empirical evidence from the natural world, which provides a solid foundation for drawing conclusions. Strength
How do ‘a posteriori’ arguments use inductive reasoning?
A posteriori arguments use inductive reasoning by drawing conclusions based on the weight of evidence gathered through observation, allowing for more flexibility and adaptability. Strength
What does J.L. Mackie argue about ‘a priori’ arguments?
J.L. Mackie argued that a priori arguments cannot establish concrete reality because they rely on definitions rather than empirical evidence. Weakness
Why does David Hume criticize ‘a priori’ arguments?
David Hume criticized a priori arguments by stating that without empirical evidence or experience, you cannot prove anything, rendering such arguments weak. Weakness
What does Kant argue about defining something into existence?
Kant argued that you cannot define something into existence, meaning that we can’t simply say something exists by adding “exists” to a definition, such as claiming God exists by definition. Weakness
Why can ‘a priori’ arguments be rejected based on definitions?
A priori arguments rely on accepting definitions before the argument works, but someone can reject those definitions (like rejecting “bachelor” as “unmarried”) which weakens the argument. Weakness
How can observations in ‘a posteriori’ arguments be unreliable?
Observations in a posteriori arguments can be unreliable because our senses can be deceived, such as in the case of optical illusions, making it difficult to trust sensory evidence in arguments. Weakness
How does the possibility of changing conclusions affect ‘a posteriori’ arguments?
A posteriori arguments are vulnerable because new evidence can change conclusions, such as how the early belief in a flat Earth was overturned when new observations showed otherwise. Weakness
What is the key strength of ‘a priori’ reasoning?
A priori reasoning is considered strong because it relies on deductive logic and does not depend on potentially unreliable experiences. Strength
Why might ‘a posteriori’ arguments be seen as stronger than ‘a priori’ arguments?
A posteriori arguments are grounded in empirical evidence and inductive reasoning, offering conclusions based on observable facts, which can be more convincing. Strength
What is a major criticism of ‘a priori’ reasoning?
A major criticism is that a priori reasoning is based on concepts or definitions, and without empirical evidence, it cannot prove anything concrete about the world. Weakness
What is a major criticism of ‘a posteriori’ reasoning?
A major criticism of a posteriori reasoning is that sensory observations can be unreliable, leading to potentially flawed conclusions based on inaccurate data. Weakness
