Ontological Flashcards
(15 cards)
what are features of ontological deductive arguments
and what is the general strategy of an ontological argument
- general premises to a specific conclusion
- can provide certainty as if each premise is true then the conclusion is bound to be true
- to deduce the existence of God from the concept of God, they will claim the statement “God exists” is an analytic truth so to say that “God does not exist” is a logical contradiction
what does valid and sound mean regarding deductive arguments
valid –> conclusions follow from the premises, the argument is connect up together, it has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the argument or any part of it, invalid arguments are ones where the conclusions don’t follow from the premises
sound –> valid arguments where each premise and conclusion is true, unsound arguments can be valid but will have a false premise, and so a false conclusion
how does St Anselm define God
- the greatest conceivable being
- by conceivable he means logically possible and coherent, there are no logical contradictions
- by greatest he means of the highest quality
what is St Anselm’s formal ontological argument
P1) By definition, God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
P2) We can coherently conceive of such a being - the concept of God is coherent
P3) It is greater to exist in reality than only in the mind
C1) Therefore God must exist
how might St Anselm’s ontological argument been convincing or unconvincing
- valid and sound deductive argument
- Guanilo perfect island
- Kant existence is not a perfection
- concept of God is incoherent
- it is not of higher quality to exist in reality than in the mind
- empiricist objection that existence claims must be a-posteriori
outline Guanilo’s objection to St Anselm
P1) By definition, the perfect island is an island greater than which cannot be conceived
P2) We can coherently conceive of such an island, the concept of a perfect island is coherent
P3) It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
C1) Therefore, the perfect island must exist
- reductio ad absurdum –> reducing an argument to an absurd conclusion
how does St Anselm respond to Guanilo’s objection
- this argument only works for God
- since God necessarily has to be the greatest conceivable being, or there would not be a God
- Guanilo’s example of an island is wrong as there is nothing necessary about a particular conception of a greatest conceivable island
summarise Descartes trademark argument and how he defines God
- defines God as the supremely perfect being, who possess the whole set of perfections
- Descartes argued that we have the idea of God a priori and that God exists as its only possible cause, since causes must have just as much reality as their effects
outline Descartes ontological argument
P1) I have the idea of a God a priori (from the trademark argument)
P2) The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
P3) A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection
P4) Existence is perfection
C1) Therefore God exists
what are some reasons why Descartes ontological argument may or may not be convincing
- valid and sound deductive argument
- Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate
- empiricist objection that existence claims must be a posteriori
- arguments against the trademark argument showing we do not have the idea of God a priori
1. Locke universal assent
2. Humes Fork and Copy Principle
3. Cartesian circle
what is a predicate and how do Anselm and Descartes claim that existence is a predicate of the concept of God
- predicate is a property of an object
- Anselm claimed that since it is greater to exist in reality than the mind, and God is the greatest conceivable being, God must possess existence
- Descartes claimed that since God is the supremely perfect being, and existence is a perfection, then God must possess existence
what is the formal version of Kant’s objection to the ontological argument
P1) If “God does not exist” is a contradiction, then “God exists” is an analytic truth and existence is part of the concept of God
P2) Existence is not a predicate, something that can be added onto another concept
C1) Therefore, existence is not a part of the concept of God, and “God exists” is not an analytic truth
C2) Therefore, “God does not exist” is not a contradiction
C3) Therefore, we cannot deduce the existence of God from the concept of God and the ontological arguments fail to prove that God exists
what does Malcolm claim about necessary and contingent existence
- agrees with Kant that existence is not a predicate
- but claims Kant is equivocating between two different kinds of existence and only necessary existent can be a predicate (a property of an object)
- necessary existence means an entity must exist, it is a logical contradiction if it does not
- contingent existence means an entity may or may not exist and so it is not a contradiction of it not to exist
what is the formal version of Malcolms ontological argument
P1) Either God exists or God does not exist
P2) God cannot come into existence or go out of existence
C1) Therefore, if God exists, then God cannot cease to exist - God must exist necessarily
C2) Therefore, if God does not exist then God cannot come into exists - God’s existence is impossible
C3) Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
P3) God’s existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory
P4) The concept of God is not self-contradictory
C4) Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible and God must exist necessarily
apply Hume’s fork to Malcolms ontological argument
P1) Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction
P2) Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent (existence is contingent)
C1) Therefore, there is no being whose existence implies a contradiction; no being can exist necessarily
P3) We can conceive God as existing and not existing
C2) Therefore, God’s existence is not necessary
