the ontological arguments for the existence of God Flashcards
detail of the first version of Anselm’s argument- his aim, how he does this, and the techniques he uses
- his aim: to give a clear definition of God and to show reason can demonstrate that God exists in reality, achieved through analysing the logical implications of the definition of God
- How he does this: Anselm claims all people intuitively understand God to be “That than which nothing greater can be conceived or thought”, meaning contains all perfect attributes. Anselm argues this must be a universal definition as even atheists must agree with this def, because they must know what the word God means in order to deny his existence.
- What else? God must exist have the greatest type of existence because he is TTWNCBT, and so must exist in re and in intellectu
- What technique does he use?Reductio ad absurdum: if one denies God’s existence they are logically contradicting themselves. This is because if God did not exist in re, he would not be the greatest conceivable being and so something else in re would be greater. But this can’t be the case because God is TTWNCBT and so a thirst would be breaking the law of non-contradiction.
quick summary of the first version of Anselm’s argument
Because God is TTWNCBT, he must exist in re as well as in intellectu. To deny the existence of God would be logically contradictory because it would mean God would not be the greatest being to exist and it would be possible to think of something greater than God, namely something existing in re. Existence is inseparable from the definition of God
What is Gaunilo’s criticism: his main issue and the example he gives
- Main issue: Anselm trying to define something into existence by arguing it must be so because there is a superlative infront of it
- What example does he give: substitution God for a perfect island that has become lost. Following Anselm’s logic, this island must exist as it is the most perfect island, even though there is no empirical evidence for it.
Outline Anselm’s second version: his aim, how he does this, what technique used and how he justifies this
- aim: to show his argument only works for God, and that God’s non-existence is impossible —> an argument unique to God
- how does he do this: there are 2 ways to exist in re: contingently (imperfectly) and necessary (perfect and non-ex is impossible)—> this is the best way to exist and as God is TTWNCBT, “it is possible to conceive of… a being whose non-existence is impossible”
- what technique does he use: reductio ad absurdum- if God was not such a being it would be possible to name something greater than him, something that is impossible to deny the existence of. This can’t be the case because God is TTWNCBT and so God not only exists, but is non-ex is impossible
- How does he justify this: “if a mind could think of something better than you, the creature would rise about the creator…which is the height of absurdity”
Outline first stage of Descartes’ argument: his aims, definition and how he argues this
- His aim: to give the definition of God he found in his mind which was clear and distinct, and to show that this was a true definition
- His definition: “I…find the idea of God…the idea of a supremely perfect being, in me” who contains all perfect attributes
- How does he argue this is true: a perfect idea must come from a perfect source. As only God is perfect, he must be the source of this idea. As God is perfect it must be a true definition of him
Outline second stage of Descartes’ argument: his aims, how he argues this and why he thinks this
- his aim: to show God must exist and his non-existence is impossible
- how does he do this: He argues that to be supremely perfect means to have all perfect attributes, like omniscient and omnipotent, which would also include existing necessarily (the perfect way of existing)–> he argues this is something that clearly follows from his definition
- why does Descartes think this: he thinks necessary existence should be a first order predicate that is analytically true. He gives this example that “existence can no more be separated from the definition of God than the fact the sum of its three angles is equal to two right-angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle”
+ve: provides a universal definition of God that all agree with
- universal definition that is not specific to one religion so can be accepted by lots of religions - even atheists
- has a sound basis to deductively conclude Gods existence
- both A and D claim definition is trustworthy bc came from God himself (A in prayer, D says it is innate, but God puts idea in our heads)
-ve: not possible to define God
- thesis: if we can’t define God, there is no a priori evidence to prove he exists
- Moses Maimonides: our language is not adequate enough- we are imperfect so our definition could lead to inaccuracies
- Aquinas: “Do we have a correct definition of God?” and even if we have, we cannot comprehend it as our minds could corrupt our understanding
- Augustine: “if you claimed to have grasped him, what you have grasped is not God”
- logical positivists: we have no idea what perfection means so any definition of God is meaningless- we can’t understand it so the words do not define God
+ve: God must not only have the predicate of existence but also necessary existence and he is truly other
- the arg allows us to understand the true nature of God—> he is perfect so must have existence within his definition
-ve: existence cannot be a predicate (part of Gods definition)
- Kant: a predicate adds to the understanding of a subject, e.g. a circle being round. So, existence foes not add to the nature of a subject and instead just tells you if the subject is ‘exemplified’ in real life. “we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that the thing is”
- Aquinas: it may be self evident to God that his existence is a predicate, but for us we do not know this because “we do not truly know the essence of God…[it] must be demonstrated by things that are more known to us” —> we can truly understand that being a an unmarried man is a predicate of a bachelor because we can experience this
outline of Kant’s criticisms
- Kant claims onto arg doesnt prove god exists as it misunderstands that existence cant be a predicate
- onto arg doesnt prove god exists bc necessary existence is meaningless
why is a priori better than a posteriori
- in this arg, only 1 concl follows if the arg is true- that god exists.
–> in a post args there are other concl reached as well as god as these are inductive, not deductive
–> thus, in these the first cause, designed, prime mover… could be something else e.g. evolution, multiple universes or a being that isn’t perfect - the being that this arg points to, is the one most religions would recognise (i.e. a perfect unlimited being)
–> not the same in a post: Hume would arg if the first cause, prime mover… is some kind of god, this could be a limited being- this is def not the case in onto arg bc in this God is supremely perfect.
+ve: for god his definition can show he must exist
-for God, necessary existence can be a predicate as it does tell you what he is like (he is unique and his non-ex is impossible)
- with other arguments, their definition cant include they must exist, BUT God’s essence must include his necessary existence – and a priori evidence can show he exists (can be seen in Anselm’s reply to Guanilo)
- this is bc God is ontologically diff and so great that he must exist (this is unique to god)
- Modern philosophers: eg Malcom + Plantinga: agree w^
- Descartes: “I cannot conceive of God without existence…because [of the] necessity of the thing itself”
-ve: a priori evidence or analytic statements cant show what exists
- Hume + Kant: you cant claim these criticisms dont apply to God just bc he ‘has’ necessary existence
–> Hume: “we cannot define something into existence”
–> necessity tells you (what Frege calls) the first order predicates of a subject, i.e a bachelor and an unmarried male. this is essential (to deny this would be a logical contradiction). these are also known a posteriori (i.e. we need to go outside the definition to know if its true- e..g. to know if Tim is a bachelor we need a posteriori evidence for this)
–> first order predicates still remain regardless if the thing exists or not, e.g. a circle is still a round shape regardless if it exists or not
–> SO meaningless to say something exists necessarily bc there is no necessity in existence- Hume: “whatever we conceive of as existence, we can also conceive of as non-existence” - this criticism also shows that you need a posteriori evidence to prove what exists and doesnt- would need evidence of God - SO all Anselm has done is say that IF god exists, his non-ex is impossible : Kant: “we must go outside it, if we are to ascribe existence to the object”
+ve: Anselm’s is not a proof
- proof is what is definitely true (this isn’t what Anselm is trying to argue - he’s just trying to say there are good reasons to believe in God, i.e. these beliefs aren’t irrational)
- although Descartes version is a proof, Anselm’s isn’t- could’ve been an attempt to convince a theist (who doesnt need prove) that belief is rational
- Anselm: “I do not seek to understand that I may believe”
- John Cottingham: ontological arg “underline the unsurpassable perfection of God…[for] those who are already committed”
