UNIT2.3- The Ontological Argument Flashcards
Definition the ontological argument
+ the type of reasoning it utilises
The ontological argument claims that the statement that God exists is analytic true by definition as it is an aspect of the essence of God and therefore part of his definition
It uses a priori knowledge (conclusion can be drawn through reason)
and is deductive (if the premises are true, so is the conclusion) which claims that existence is an aspect of the essence of God and therefore the definition and therefore we can prove God’s existence from his definition
In the same way that a bachelor by definition is an unmarried man and a giant must be huge by definition. God‘s existence is a necessary attribute
Anselms’ first form of the ontological argument
1- God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
2- a real existent being be greater than an imaginary illusory being
( a real cake and a real £1 million are much better than an imaginary version)
-A being that exists only ‘in intellectu’ (as an idea/ in the mind) wouldn’t be the greatest in comparison to being that exists ‘in re’ (in reality)
3- Therefore, the concept of God is surpassed by an actual existent God
Who Anselm was writing for/his perspective
Anselm wrote this argument as a Christian for other Christians (the perspective of faith seeking understanding) he argued that once we understand God we must admit God exists in reality
Bad for his argument was not written with the purpose of convincing people that God really does exist despite their doubts but was trying to explore what faith is about
“ nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe but rather I believe so that I can understand”
He argued that even a fool could see that God is the greatest possible being and whoever doesn’t support the argument does not understand the true nature of God
How the fool managed to say in his heart that which cannot be thought
- he knows it to be true but is ignorant
Anselms second form of the ontological argument
Anselm uses the word ‘necessary’ in the form ‘de dicto necessity’ (from the definition)
This demonstrates that from the very definition of the word God we arrive at the idea that God must exist as existence is a key part of the concept of God.
1- He argues that God is that tha which nothing greater can be conceive
2- contingent being are inferior to being with necessary existence
3- because God is unsurpassable in every way. God must have a necessary existence and
therefore it is necessary that God exists.
He is arguing that God must exist because a necessary being cannot not exist. Only contingent beings can unnecessary existence is part of the definition of God there is no use in discussing a God who does not exist as he would not be God
The principle of non- contradiction
+quote and explanation of ‘the fool’
Often described as the first law of logic -Contradictory statement cannot be true in the same sense at the same time
A person who understands the concept of God to deny God’s existence is a direct contradiction
Anselm argues that God exists is an analytic statement as if he didn’t exist he wouldn’t be the greatest possible being therefore and all of his existence is foolish because you have not understand the true definition of God
“ why then did the fall say in his heart? God is not since it is so obvious to the rational mind that you exist supremely above all things.”
Gaunilo and Aquinas’ criticism of Anselms ontological argument
+ quote
His first argument is that the nature of God is too mysterious to unknowable for us have any accurate or true definition of him. The epidemic distance is too large for us to fathom or conceive him. He is just a verbal undefinable thing.
This is similar to the workings of Aquinas who argued but due to the events of the fall and the severed relationship between humanity and God+ epistemically distance (John Hick)
Aquinas argued that while human reason can lead us to believe in God’s existence and gain some knowledge of His attributes,God’s divine nature is ultimately a mystery, something that even with divine revelation, we can never grasp fully.
Aquinas used the “analogy of proportion” to explain how we can speak about God, even though we can’t fully understand Him. This means that attributes we apply to God (like “good” or “just”) are similar to the way we use those terms, but in a higher, more perfect way, according to
Aquinas also believed that faith plays a crucial role in our knowledge of God, complementing reason and allowing us to grasp truths that are beyond our natural understanding. However, he also emphasized that even faith doesn’t give us complete understanding of God’s nature
“ if you claim you have grasped him what you have grasped is not good”
- has biblical support “his understanding no one can fathom”
“His greatness is unsearchable”
Gaunilos criticism of Anselms ontological argument
Gaunilo demonstrates the flawed logic of the argument by reducing it to absurdity ‘reducto ad adsurdum’ describing a lost island that by definition is perfect and excellent. It has the most riches no inhabitants and is ultimately flawless.
Arguably for it to exist in this way, it has to exist in the mind and reality otherwise it would be imperfect therefore by the same logic it must exist
“ For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will become more excellent than it”
He argued the person cannot accept this argument as nothing can be true by definition alone
Aquinas’ criticism of the ontological argument
Well goes existence may be self evident in itself. It is not self evident to the human mind as we can conceive a non-existent God the concept of God existence is therefore not a necessary truth for us to understand.
Aquinas also questioned whether everyone would accept this definition as he believed that although we can appreciate and understand aspects of God he will remain unknowable to our finite mind similar to the concept of John Hicks epidemic distance. He also raised out about whether this concept of God, even if it was universally accepted could effectively prove such a being existence in reality
Anselms response to Gaunilo
Flaws with the concept of perfection
- The attributes of perception as prescribed to the island by Garnero are subjective as there will be disagreements as to what makes that island perfect if it’s tropical deserted inhabited et cetera, especially when compared to the extent of perfection that is applied to God
- Another problem is the use of the term perfection in the case of an island by definition. Any piece of land surrounded by water is an island in which case all islands are perfect islands
(Both lead to questions as to whether perfection is subjective by nature or if it is absolute)
Flaws in terms of the nature of God
- An island depends on certain factors for its existence for example water islands are contingent however God does not rely on anything else for its existence. Instead other things rely on God for their existence as God is necessary. He is utterly incomparable to a concept such as an island.
- Similarly, islands aren’t perfect by definition perfection is an incidental rather than an essential property of the island. God on the other hand when properly understood must be perfect otherwise he wouldn’t be God.
(Arguably a perfect island would not be contingent as a necessity is key part of a perfect concept, and it would therefore become an essential property)
Descartes ontological argument
They can’t believe that we are all born with a night ideas imprinted on us from birth these concepts include shapes, numbers equality and also God, downfall from birth we know that God is supreme perfect and has therefore all the attributes of perfection
In the same way, a triangle isn’t a triangle if it doesn’t have three angles totalling to 180° God isn’t God without existence
“I cannot think of God except as existing, just as I cannot think of a mountain without a valley.”
They linked these examples to God and perfection as nature involves perfection and existence is a perfection as God has all the perfections. He is only potent on the benevolent on this et cetera and existence is a perfection. He therefore must exist. He argued that God is unchanging has always existed and will always continue to exist.
Kants criticism of the ontological argument
The subject = what the sentence is about
A predicate = the part that tells us something about the subject adding to our knowledge of it
Kant argued that existence is not a predicate and therefore doesn’t tell you anything about the subject. “I add no predicate to the conception of god”
If we gave a complete description about something and then to create existence we had nothing to the concept of it to assert that it exists is only to say something about the world demonstrating that it contains something that matches the concept that you have just described .
He used the example of 100 real thalers (the currency of the time)
He argued that both are hypothetical and real version of this money has the same value and description. Their existence is not defined by knowledge and must be proven through a posterior reason (evidence)
Attempting to prove God through his definition as a category error as you cannot define something into existence )
Strengths of the ontological argument
+counter of Knts argument
Uses deductive logic the premises being God’s definition is the greatest as possible being and then reaches a conclusion which must be true if the premises are
(Analytic rather than a synthetic statement)
Religious belief is more than an intellectual acceptance of assertions or logical argument similar to being in love a persons fault may be glaringly obvious but emotion intuition and commitment override common sense
Faith in God and religious ambiguity for believers is more important than proving his existence
Malcolm accepts Kants argument argument that contingent existence is not a predicate
however as God is not contingent but necessary he could not come into existence if he did not exist and he couldn’t stop existing if he already exists of being with the greatness of God is uncaused and therefore has no beginning God‘s existence being impossible is logical logically contradictory
Weaknesses of ontological arguments
Premises arguably shown to be inaccurate
Flawed logic as demonstrated by Kant
Russell also argues that the logic filters and demonstrates that it is syllogism (a form of reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two assumed propositions)
Men exist Father Christmas exist, therefore he exists
Hume argues that existence is contingent and necessary existence is not a coherent concept
The cumulative argument
The cumulative argument argues at the three traditional arguments can offer good evidence for God’s existence. The teleological cosmological and ontological demonstrate that God’s existence makes more sense than any alternative conclusions in light of the available evidence.
They argue that God existence may never be proven however if we take these three arguments combine them with the existences of miracles prayer et cetera the most likely conclusion when all is combined is that this exists.
Rejection of the cumulative argument
Anthony flew rejects this type of cumulative argument using the analogy of the leaky pockets. He asks us to imagine that each argument for God’s existence is a bucket with a number of holes in because none of the arguments for God’s existence are perfect.
He argued that if we put each of these buckets together in the form of the cumulative argument, then we would still have a leaky bucket even taken together the three arguments for the existence of God still have too many floors and too many problems to count as good evidence for God’s existence
