Arguments based on reason (ontological) Flashcards
(19 cards)
What argument does Anselm provide to support the existence of God?
-Definition of God - God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than in the mind alone, and because God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, God must exist in reality.
Guanilo criticism of Anslem’s ontological argument
Although Guanilo also believed in God, he criticised anslem’s use of logic and reasoning. Guanilo argues that using Anslems’s logical, if you have an understanding of something in your mind, it must exist in reality.
Anselm’s response to Guanilo’s criticism
Anselm’s second formulation of the argument (proslogian 3) is a response to Guanilo.
-Guanilo is talking about an island, which is contingent. Anselm is talking about God, a different type of being, a necessary being.
-Anselm argues that since it is greater to be a necessary being than to be contingent, and God is the greatest conceivable being. so since God is a necessary being, God must exist.
What is an analytic statement?
A statement that contains the truth needed to verify it within itself. It is true because of its meaning e.g. all bachelors are unmarried men
What is a synthetic statement?
A statement that needs external evidence to verify whether it is true or false
What is Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument?(anselms ontonological argument)
(-)Kant argues that all statements about existence must be synthetic, not analytic. You need to go outside of the concept and find external, synthetic evidence to prove its existence.
Descartes view on the existence of God
(+)Existence is part of the essence of God, a perfect being just like three sides is part of the essence of a triangle. Existence cannot be separated from God. So God is logically necessary.
Why are apriori arguments better to support the existence of God
(+)they use deductive reasoning, so the premises lead to a logical and certain conclusion. God is beyond this world and cannot be observed so belief should be based on reason.
Can the existence of God be treated as a predicate?
Yes
How did Guanilo criticise the ontological argument?
-Said Anselm was defining God into existence
-The example of the lost island
-Used the example of gossip, to demonstrate that we might hold ideas in our mind that we might even believe, but this does not make them true
-Rejected Anselm’s idea that we all have an understanding of the greatest possible being might differ for different people
Which scholar argues that existence is not a determining predicate?
Kant, which strengthens Guanilo’s criticisms of Anselm’s ontological argument
Are a priori or a posterior arguments more convincing?
a posterior
reasons why the a posterior arguments may be more convincing
Although neither a priori nor a posterior can definitely lead to the conclusion of a God, especially that of classical theism, I believe that the a posterior arguments are more convincing. Aquinas and Aristotle both look for answers to explain motion, contingency and causation, it is coherent to then arrive at the conclusion of a supernatural being such as the PM or a theistic God. However Hume…
A posterior arguments are more convincing:
-Do we all have the same understanding of God ?
As Guanilo suggest, Anselm was wrong to assert that we all have an understanding of what it means to be the greatest conceivable being, the ontological argument fails on the grounds that it assumes that the definition of God is universal
Intro (existence as a predicate)
- Outline Anselms ontological argument
- Kants criticism
- My argument
Anselm in Proslogion 2, states that the definition of God is ‘than that which nothing greater can be conceived’, he attempted to argue that since this is the definition of God, it would be greater for God to exist in both the mind and reality, rather in the mind alone; therefore, God exists. Kant criticises the ontological argument claiming that they are invalid because existence is not a real or determining predicate. A predicate should add to our understanding, but for Kant, this is not the case. Whilst I accept that existence doesn’t directly alter the logical structure of a concept, once something exists, it gains additional, real-world predicates - ones that weren’t contained in the concept itself. Therefore, existence indirectly adds properties, and in this broader, ontological sense, it functions as a predicate.
P2 (existence is a predicate)
-link to the attributes of God
While existence may not be a predicate in the strict, logical sense that adds a property to a concept’s definition, it nonetheless acts as a vital meaning-giving condition for other predicates. In particular, when we talk about God’s attributes - such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence - these qualities are conceptually empty without the assumption of God’s real existence. Without existence, these attributes remain abstract and meaningless; they describe no actual being and thus carry no real content. Therefore, God’s existence indirectly functions as a predicate, for it is the foundational reality that grounds and makes the divine attributes of God meaningful. Existence, in this sense, is a necessary precondition for meaningful predication. This shows that existence provides the framework within which other predicates can be truly ascribed. In summary, without existence, we would not have a meaningful understanding of God, existence plays a vital role in this and certainly indirectly adds to our understanding of the definition of God.
P3 (existence is a predicate)
-Kant’s view assumes that concepts are…
Kant’s view assumes that concepts are stable, universal entities that can be judged independently of experience. But that’s not how real knowledge or concepts work. The concept of a unicorn, for instance - or anything - is incomplete and fluid until grounded in reality. If unicorns were discovered tomorrow, our idea of what a unicorn is would be redefined by its actual traits. To further this, before we had an understanding of God, we could not have given him a definition or described his all-powerful traits, it is only through his existence that we have been able to give him a definition. In addition, Kant uses the example of 100 thalers or silver coins. He argues that 100 real thalers do not have any extra coins than 100 possible thalers, so the concept of 100 thalers is the same whether real or not. However, Kant fails to recognise that without these 100 silver coins existing, they have no real value, similar to how God would not and could not have the traits he does, which make him distinctive of other beings, without first existing. Therefore, in order to have a complete understanding of a concept and its predicates, it must first exist or have existed.
P1 (existence is a predicate)
A predicate is….
A predicate is something you cannot be without – it’s a defining feature or characteristic of what makes God, God. The subject (God) has to have the predicate to be God. God cannot lack existence in reality because if he lacked existence, he wouldn’t be God, ‘than that which nothing greater can be conceived’. If God was purely in our mind alone then it wouldn’t be God by definition. However, if we were to accept that existence itself is a predicate of God, then this would not emphasise the unique predicates of God that separate him from us humans. Such predicates can however, only be defining characteristics of God if he exists, making existence an indirect predicate of God, that cannot be separated from his definition.
P4 (existence is a predicate)
Descartes
In addition, existence cannot be separated from God, the “supremely perfect being” as Descartes proposes. Descartes furthers this point adding that existence is part of the perfection of God which God cannot lack; to be truly perfect something must exist, and therefore God must exist. He uses the example of how a triangle has three angles that add up to 180 degrees, just as three sides tells us something about the nature of a triangle, God’s nature is that he exists. This is because ‘necessary existence’ cannot be avoided from the concept of a supremely perfect being. Trying to imagine a God without the predicate of existence is illogical, as is trying to imagine a triangle without three sides. I believe that Descartes is somewhat right, but I think that existence is what allows for the attributes that make God a “supremely perfect being”, not necessarily existence its self, similar to how Anslem states that a perfect island is one that exists outside of the mind, a perfect God – who is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent – is one who exists in reality not merely in the mind alone. Thus, making existence an indirect predicate.
