Theme 2 (Deductive Arguments for the Existence of God) Flashcards
What is the Ontological Argument?
+ what type of argument is this?
deductive philosophical argument which aims to prove the existence of God a priori
+ Deductive: establishes a conclusion to be true by stating two or more true premises that lead to the conclusion being true
+ A priori: knowledge considered to be true without being based on previous experience and observation
Who is Anselm?
+ what is his 1st form of Ontological Argument?
Archbishop of Canterbury who wrote Proslogian
+ 1) ‘The Fool has said in his heart “There is no God”
2) Anselm defines God as ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’
3) Existing in reality & the mind is greater than existing only in the mind
4) Therefore, God must exist in reality as well as the mind or he would not be the greatest being
What was Anselm’s 2nd form of Ontological Argument?
1) Existing necessarily is greater than existing contingently
2) Anselm defines God as ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’
3) Therefore, God must exist necessarily or he would not be the greatest being
Anselm’s Ontological Argument Quotes
“Truly there is a God, although the fool has said ‘There is no God” (Bible)
“A being than which nothing greater can be conceived”
“require no other for its proof than itself alone; and alone would suffice to demonstrate that God truly exists”
What is Descartes form of the Ontological Argument?
+ what are his analogies?
1) God is a supremely perfect being (he possesses all perfections)
2) Existence is a perfection
C) God must have necessary existence as this is a perfection
+ the triangle (God by definition must have existence just as a triangle by definition must have 3 sides)
+ mountain & valley cannot be separated from each other similarly, God and existence cannot be separated from each other
Descartes Ontological Argument Quote
“I cannot think of God except as existing, just as I cannot think of a mountain without a valley.”
“the idea of God … is one which I find within me
just as surely as the idea of any shape or number”
Who was Norman Malcolm?
+ how and why did he reject Anselm’s & Descartes’ arguments?
- twentieth century philosopher
- wrote The Philosophers Review
+ rejected the premises of ‘nothing greater can be conceived’ and ‘God possesses all perfections’
+ you cannot add a list of qualities to a possible being & then claim it exists
+ jumping from ideas & characteristics of a possible being to existence is illogical
How did Malcolm develop Anselm & Descartes arguments?
God equally should be described as an unlimited being:
P1: God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
P2: God’s existence is not impossible as God is unlimited
C: Therefore, God is necessary & exists
Malcolm quotes in rejection and development of Anselm’s & Descartes’ arguments
REJECT:
“The doctrine that existence is a perfection is remarkably queer”
“what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if it exists than if it does not?”
“it would be better if God exists than if He does not-but that is a different matter”
DEVELOP:
“God is an absolute unlimited being”
Who was Alvin Plantinga & what logic did he use?
+ how did he develop the Ontological Argument?
American philosopher & modal logic (uses possible worlds to asses the validity of possible beings)
+ P1: There is a possible world with a being with maximal greatness
P2: Maximal greatness includes all worlds
C: This being exists in our world, therefore God exists
Who was Gaunilo?
- How did Gaunilo criticise Anselm’s 2nd form of Ontological Argument?
+ quote
Monk who wrote On Behalf of the Fool
- He responded by saying we could use Anselm’s logic to prove the existence of anything
- He used the example of a lost island which via Anselm’s logic can be proved into existence when we know for a fact it doesn’t exist in reality
- He said defining God as the greatest possible being doesn’t mean he exists
+ “he should suppose that he had established with any certainty the existence of this island”
How did Anselm counter Gaunilo’s criticism?
+ how has Gaunilo been criticised himself?
Anselm states that this logic can only be used for necessary beings (ie God) not contingent ones (ie Gaunilo’s island)
+ as God’s perfection is a necessary part of him- which does not apply to the island as this possesses no intrinsic maximum
How did Kant criticise Anselm & Descartes forms of the Ontological Argument? (Quote?)
+ how did Aquinas criticise?
- he said ‘existence is not a real predicate’ as it does not add anything to the concept and cannot be added or subtracted from something
- he said ‘God exists’ is not an analytical statement as AS can only be used to describe ideas not reality
“‘being’ is obviously not a real predicate”
+ He said there was no agreed definition of God & so ‘a priori’ cannot be used to prove God exists
How did Russell criticise the Ontological Argument?
+ How did Brian Davies criticise the Ontological Argument?
P1: Men exist
P2: Santa is a man
C: Santa exists
+ he says it uses circular logic which doesn’t make sense
e.g If God exists then he exists necessarily
& if God exists necessarily then he exists
Strengths of the Ontological Argument
+ Anselm shows the concept of God is not illogical
+ It is a priori & deductive offering clear proof and conclusions
+ no need for empirical evidence
+ uses definition of God to prove his existence
+ Plantinga’s multi-verse theory supports it
+ Spinoza’s idea of existence being part of essence supports it
Weaknesses of the Ontological Argument
- (Gaunilo) it could be applied to anything
- (Kant) existence isn’t a predicate & we can reject the definition
- (Aquinas) a priori is not valid argument
- (Russell) first premise being truthful doesn’t
guarantee the same for the second premise - (Hume) existence can only be contingent
- God may not be thought of as a necessity
- Can only prove God’s existence if you are a believer
- If multiverse theory is wrong the argument falls apart
