Arguments for God's existence - Ontological Arguement Flashcards
a priori arguments
Arguments based on reason are valid a priori, without the need to refer to observations from experience.
A priori arguments are simply logically true in the same way that the following argument is logically true:
- All men are mortal;
- Socrates is a man;
- Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
a priori = true by definition
A priori arguments are true by definition - in the same way that 2 & plus;2 = 4 is true by definition as another way of defining 2 + 2 is to call it 4.
If it can be shown that God exists by definition, then a priori arguments work.
what’s the Latin term for arguments based on reason
a priori arguments
a priori argument - Ariana example
A priori arguments are simply logically true in the same way that the following argument is logically true:
- all women are mortal
- Ariana Grande is a woman
- Ariana Grande is mortal
the ontological argument
The argument is known in different forms. The generally accepted classical formulation is from Anselm (1033-1109). It is found in chapters 2-4 of his work Proslogion.
logical deductive arguments
anselm’s argument (1st form)
self contradiction (1st form)
anselm’s argument (2nd form)
theory of the 2nd form
logical deductive argument
The logical demonstration in the argument either totally succeeds or totally fails – it is a logical deductive argument.
anselm’s argument (1st form)
God is that which nothing greater can be conceived (call this ABC).
Even the atheist can have this definition in his understanding.
But if he has it in his understanding (ie in the mind) only, then there must be a greater being who exists both in the mind and reality (it is greater to exist both in the mind and reality).
So, by the definition ABC, God must exist both in the mind and in reality.
self-contradiction (1st form)
Another way of saying this is that it is self-contradictory to be capable of conceiving something that nothing greater can be thought, and at the same time to deny that something really exists.
anselm’s argument (2nd form)
The second form of the argument is developed to show the impossibility of conceiving of God as not existing.
God cannot not be. Any lesser form of existence where it was possible not to be would not fit with the definition of God.
theory of the 2nd form
God is ABC (see 1st form).
It is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being.
If God exists only contingently, it would be possible to imagine a greater being who exists necessarily.
But if God is ABC, then that being has to be God
So God must be a necessary being and exist in reality.
- It is important to note that this is logical necessity and not factual necessity (the kind of necessity arrived at in the cosmological argument).
who proposed the first ontological argument
anselm
different types of knowledge
a priori
> based on reason
» all dogs are mammals
a posteriori
> based on observation
» it’s raining outside now
what are a priori proved arguments true by
definition
criticisms of the ontological argument
Gaunilo was a monk and a contemporary of Anselm, who argued you could not define things into existence. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher in the Age of Enlightenment.
Gaunilo’s counter-argument
Kant’s counter-argument
Quotation from Kant
Gaunilo’s counter-argument
Gaunilo constructed a reductio ad absurdum argument (disproving an argument by showing it’s absurd) to show the flaw in Anselm’s argument.
- Imagine a lost island – the most excellent of all islands.
- You can form the idea of this island in your mind.
- So according to Anselm’s logic, the island must exist in reality.
- But this is absurd, and so is Anselm’s argument.
Anselm replied that islands are contingent things and so do not have necessary existence, whereas God does.
