ontological Flashcards
(26 cards)
how is proslogian 2 written
like a prayer
what type of argument does Anselm use
a priori
what is Anselm’s definition of God
God is that which ‘no greater can be conceived’, or God is the greatest being that can be thought of.
what does Anselm quote from psalm 14:1
‘the fool says in his heart there is no God. his argument aims to show why the non-believer or atheist, who believes there is no God is foolish
what is Anselm’s example
we can think of things in our mind but to exist in reality is greater. Anselm uses the example of a painter who has the idea of a painting in his mind. but the painting is greater once it has been painted because now it exists in reality as well as in the mind of the painter
what does Anselm argue about existence in mind and reality
it is greater to exist in the mind and reality, than the mind alone. anything that really exists is greater than things that only exist in the understanding, or the mind.
Anselm says that the ‘fool’ (the atheist from psalms) would agree with his definition of God, ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, so has the concept of God in his mind. but the ‘fool’ does not think that God exists in reality. Anselm is arguing that there is a universal understanding of God, even if people don’t accept that he exists
what does Anselm believe to be a contradiction in reasoning
anything that exists in reality is greater than things that only exist in the mind, anything really existing would be greater than God. this is a contradiction or mistake in reasoning because God is ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’.
what is Anselm’s conclusion
Therefore, because it is greater to exist in the mind and reality than in the mind alone, and because God is ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’, God must exist in reality. Anselm argues that the ‘fool’ fails to believe only because he hasn’t considered the true definition of God. Once he accepts Anselm’s definition of God, then he has to accept that God exists. The success of the ontological argument depends on the logical reasoning. if there is a logical fallacy, or error in reasoning, then the premises and conclusion can be challenged. it is also important to consider whether ontological arguments justify belief. is having the concept of God logically proved enough to believe and affect how you live your life? can we be sure, using this argument what this God would be like
Anselm’s ontological argument justifies belief in God
- most people would agree with the definition of God that Anselm uses. if there is a God, god would be the greatest possible conceivable being
- Anselm’s argument is a priori because it is based on logic and reasoning alone. like other rationalist arguments, we can argue that the senses deceive so it is better to rely on reason
- following the premises of the argument, God has to exist because he is the greatest being conceivable so must exist in both mind and reality. it is valid reasoning to say that existence in mind and reality is greater than existence in the mind alone, so argument works
Anselm’s ontological argument does not justify belief in God
- is it possible to come up with a definition of God? it is not so easy to define something of which we have no knowledge or that Is not physical
- a priori arguments can also use invalid logic. it may be better to use empirically based a posteriori arguments, such as those from design, to prove the existence of Go. at least then we have some evidence to use
- we can disagree with Anselm’s reasoning and deny the premises. For example, we can argue that it is better to exist in the mind alone as we can imagine things that are otherwise impossible, such as flying carpets
what was Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm
Although gaunilo also believed in God, he criticised Anselm’s ontological argument because he disagreed with its use of logic and reasoning. Gaunilo argues that using Anselm’s logic, having an understanding of something in your mind must also mean that it exists in reality. He argues that this is a false assumption and does not have to be so.
what is Gaunilo’s example of the greatest island
he Is told about the most amazing ‘lost island’ that no one has ever found. Gaunilo can picture the island in his mind, so has an understanding of it. Anselm claims that anything that exists in reality is greater than things which exist in the mind alone. So, any island that actually exists is greater than my ‘imaginary’ lost island. But using Anselm’s reasoning, it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than the mind alone, and because this is the greatest possible island, the ‘lost island’ must actually exist. however it does not
what is another criticism from Gaunilo
criticises Anselm’s use of an argument that relies on reasoning alone because it is God that we are trying to prove. it is easier to have an understanding of a man or an island because we have seen these things, but we cannot claim to understand ‘God’ with any certainty. For example, I could hear some gossip about a man I don’t know, but at least I have some idea of what a man is. in my mind, I have an understanding of this man, or men in general, but I mean find out that this person does not exist. relating this to God, it is difficult to have an idea of what God is even in my mind
what does gaunilo accuse Anselm of
poor reasoning because simply imagining something could bring anything into existence. just because we understand something in our minds. it does not follow that that something must really exist
what is Anselm’s response to gaunilo in proslogian 3
Gaunilo uses the example of an island, which is contingent. Anselm is talking about God, a different type of being, a necessary being. it is possible to think of an island that comes into, and goes out of existence. but god is a different type of being, one with necessary existence
what two steps did anselm add
- it is possible to think of beings that come in and out of existence (contingent) and those which have necessary existence
- a necessary being is greater than a contingent being
anslem argues that since it is greater to be a necessary being than to be contingent, and god is the greatest conceivable being god is a necessary being. necessary = must exist
Gaunilo’s criticisms are successful
- It is possible to imagine something in your mind, but it does not have to exist in reality. For example, G understands what the greatest island would be like but it does not mean that it has to exist
- anselm is defining things into existence. it is possible to have a definition of something that exists only in the imagination. For example, I can imagine a unicorn but it doesn’t mean that it actually exists
- B Russel argues that existence is only meaningful if it refers to an ‘instance’ of something. For example, we see an ‘instance’ of cows but not unicorn
Gaunilo’s criticisms are not successful
- Plantinga supports Anselm against Gaunilo. he states that an island has no intrinsic maxim - it can always be improved. God, however, has an intrinsic maxim - he is the greatest conceivable being and cannot be any greater. therefore, god exists
- this is how an a priori argument works. if you agree with the original definition, that God is ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’ then the rest of the premises and conclusion follow on.
- Both Gaunilo and Russel imply the need for empirical evidence to prove existence. But arguments that use empirical evidence, such as those from observation, also have problems.
what statements do Kants critique consider
analytic and synthetic
what is Kants critique
if the concept of God contains essential aspects that are needed for him to be God, it is like saying, ‘the existing God exists’, the truth of the statement is found within the statement itself, no other evidence is needed to verify it. Descartes, for example, said that God’s essence includes existence, just as a triangle must have three sides. Both Descartes and Anselm claim it is a contradiction to say that God does not exist. However, Kant argues that all statements about existence must be synthetic, not analytic. you need to go outside of a concept and find external, synthetic evidence to prove its existence. kant uses Descartes’ example of the triangle to explain this. It is logical necessary or a triangle to have three sides, but it is not necessary for a triangle to exist in reality. so, it is not contradictory to reject the concept (God or a triangle) along with its definition
what does kant say about existence
it is not a real or determining predicate so ontological arguments are invalid. a predicate, used in a sentence as part of the description of something, should add to our understanding of it
what example does kant give for predicates
I might describe someone who ‘is’ tall dark and handsome but ‘is’ or saying ‘he exists’ does not describe any additional characteristics, it does not add anything to the description. kant used the example of the 100 thalers or silver coins. Kant argues that 100 real silver coins do not have any extra coins than 100 possible thalers, so the concept of 100 silver coins is the same whether real or not. kant claims this shows existence does not add anything to the concept so existence Is not a determining predicate
Kants criticisms are successful
- kant is right to argue that existence needs synthetic verification. ‘God exists’ is not an analytic statement because it does not hold the truth needed to verify within the statement. You have to look for evidence of existence, all statements about things existing are synthetic and need external evidence
- Existence is not a real predicate because it does not add anything new to the description of a concept. For example, I can describe a tiger as having stripes, claws sharp teeth etc. but adding the tiger exists or the tiger is does not add anything to my understanding
- a definition of a concept does not bring it into existence. If we can think of things existing, then we can also think of them not existing
kants criticisms are not successful
- a priori ontological arguments use reason only, not synthetic evidence. if you follow the premises, you have to come to the logical conclusion that God exists. Descartes argues that just as a triangle must have three sides, a mountain must have a valley, so existence cannot be separated from GOD
- the definition of God includes the predicate of existence. Existence is a part of what it means to be the greatest conceivable being (Anselm) or a supremely perfect being (Descartes)
- god is logically necessary. Anselm’s second formulation showed that it is greater to be necessary than contingent. a logically necessary being cannot exist, so must exist
