1.3 Ontological Argument - concepts Flashcards
Anselm’s definition of God
that than which nothing greater can be conceived
overview of the first stage of Anselm’s argument
- god is by definition the greatest conceivable thing
- the greatest conceivable thing must by definition exist in reality because that which exists in reality is greater than what exists only in the mind
- god necessarily exists in reality
Anselm: who must accept the concept of God he puts forwards
any reasonable person.
even an atheist must admit they can understand this conception of God
Anselm: denial that the greatest possible being (God) exists in reality is a what?
self-contradiction
Gaunilo’s island criticism overview - why Anselm’s formula is false
suggests you can argue anything has necessary existence if you conceive of it as the greatest possible thing.
Eg could argue that if you conceive of a ‘greatest island’ this conception of an island must exist in reality, which is absurd - imagining an island does not grant it reality
Second stage of Anselm’s argument (response to Gaunilo)
argument only applicable to a necessary being (God), not something contingent which can be thought of as not existing
overview of original Cartesian ontological arg
P1 - God is a supremely perfect being
P2 - existence is a perfection
C - God has existence as a perfection
God exists
imperfection as evidence for existence of perfection
that there is imperfection in the world makes sense only in the face of perfection, suggesting ‘absolute perfection’ must exist
how Descartes argues God without existence is like a triangle without three sides
the properties of a triangle are necessary to it - triangles exist because we define and understand them by their predicates. the same logic applies to God: as God is defined as the supremely perfect being, and existence as a perfection, existence is a predicate of God and therefore necessary to God
limit of Cartesian ontological argument (with triangle example)
only establishes that IF there is a God, God must exist
that IF a triangle exists it has three sides does not prove the existence of triangles
Descartes’ restatement of the Cartesian Ontological arg in response to criticsim
P1: whatever is necessary of something must be actually part of it
P2: it is necessary of God that he exists - by definition, as the supremely perfect being, his essence is to exist
C: God must exist
how Descartes’ argument is an improvement of Anselm’s
- specifies it only applies to an absolutely necessary and perfect being
- ‘perfection’ a more objective standard to base it on than what we are capable of conceiving
goal of a theistic proof
- strengthen faith of theists
- ability to convince people
strengths of inductive thought / argument
- typically based on empirical, verifiable experience
- does not demand we accept definitions as fixed
strength of deductive thought / argument
based in logic and rationality - conclusion necessarily follows from the premises and will convince any reasonable person
weakness of inductive thought / arguments
cannot produce proofs that completely remove an element of doubt from the conclusion - idea of certainty can no longer apply
weaknesses of deductive thinking / argument
- validity of conclusion relies entirely on whether one accepts premises as analytically true
- can only say that if certain phenomena are the case then we can make certain claims about them
what is a successful argument
one in which the conclusion is implied by the premises
what is a valid argument
an argument containing no contradictions
what is a ‘good’ argument
an argument in which the conclusion follows the premises AND the premises are true
why God’s existence cannot be directly proven
direct proof relies on observation and the impossibility to rationally doubt what is being seen - although some may argue God’s existence obvious via examining nature etc, this is reliant on intuition and not obvious to all people
Kant: analytic statements
statements which are true by definition because the predicates are contained within the subject - their denial leads to self contradiction
Kant: synthetic statements
statement in which the predicate adds new information about the subject, and its truth is determined through empirical observation
is the ontological argument useful to help the non-believer come to faith?
arguably no - requires a certain amount of faith either in God, or in the definition of God, to begin with
