ontological argument Flashcards
INTRO
argument that claims that gods existence can be demonstrated through reasoning - a priori deductive argument based on reason
- fails due to the inherent ambiguities of the predicate, existence, and indeed the arguable definition of the subject Himself, God
does an absolute and universal definition of God exist?
Anselm - argues (in his ‘Prosologion’) that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ - it is impossible to think of anything with greater value or which has qualities (knowledge, power, etc.) to a greater degree.
rejected by Aquinas - God is beyond understanding and so applying such logical and linguistic categories is misplaced
we cannot agree upon his true essence or definition, and even if we managed to settle for one single definition, we would not know if it was correctly defining God
Augustine - “if you claim you have grasped him, what you have grasped is not God”
subjective - ontology therefore must be illogical and ineffective
Pseudo-Dionysius explicitly says that God is ‘beyond assertion and denial’.
Anselms argument
even “the fool” (Psalm 14) who denies God at least has a concept of God present in the mind
If God existed merely in the understanding, then we could conceive of a greater being (one which existed in reality).
the greatest conceivable being cannot exist in the mind only, but must
exist in reality, for this must be better than to exist in the mind alone.
by virtue of the way he defines God, Anselm believes His existence to be imperative
gaunilos criticism
Gaunilo’s attack - parody of Anselm’s argument. He gave an Ontological Argument for the existence of an island than which nothing greater can be conceived
It is possible to conceive of the most perfect lost island
It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
Therefore, the most perfect lost island must exist in reality.
we know that such an island cannot exist. He is suggesting that Anselm’s argument can be used to prove the existence of an endless number of perfect objects.
our imaginations can invent truths that don’t exist in reality.
anselms rebutal
Everything that you might want to exist on your ‘perfect’ island is contingent – it can exist or not exist. What is a beautiful palm tree will one day rot to pieces.
God is the greatest conceivable being - cannot be conceived not to exist.
Necessary beings are greater than contingent beings thus God must be necessary
Let us assume that God is the greatest conceivable being. Would it be possible for him to go out of existence? No, because a being which could not cease to exist would be greater.
God, and God alone, possesses necessary existence: God cannot not exist
necessary existence is a predicate only of God, and not of any other things.
+ an island can never possess maximal properties.
No quality it could have could ever be
possessed to the maximum degree.
God is fundamentally different because the properties he is supposed to possess are maximal properties.
Descartes ontological argument
we are born with an understanding of what god is:
○ a supremely perfect being with perfect attributes
God is perfect, existence is a perfection, God exists
using the analogy of a triangle Descartes argues that existence cannot be separated from the essence of God
He said that existence is part of the essence of god just as 3 angles adding up to 180° is part of the essence of a triangle
Kants criticism
+ ‘God does not exist’ is not self-contradictory. It is a statement which may be true or false. Any statement about an object can be self-contradictory, but if the object is held not to exist in the first place then it has no essence to be contradicted.
greatest drawback - its assumption that existence is a predicate at all - an existent God appears not to add anything to our understanding of Him.
By talking about “so and so” in the first place, we assume that he exists.
therefore, existence is not a characteristic, but is in a different category.
Brian Davies is less sure. He argues that Anselm is not trying to say that we can move directly from an idea of God to knowledge of his existence. Instead, Anselm’s focus is upon the claim that the greatest conceivable being cannot exist merely in the mind.
+If an object can be conceived of as existing or not existing, then to say that it exists means something. If an idea exists in the intellect, then it is meaningful to consider whether it exists in reality as well.
but relies too heavily on human thought and the human mind - what would happen if humans decided to change the definition as they are the ones who created it in the first place
- what if they stopped thinking about god forever?
Norman Malcolm
Norman Malcolm argues that necessary existence is a distinguishing characteristic which sets god apart and therefore can be used as a predicate
however must accept that god exists necessarily to come to the conc that god exists necessarily
God’s existence is either necessary or it is impossible. There cannot be such a thing as a merely possible necessary being, for what is necessary cannot not exist.
The idea of God as an impossible being is groundless (there is no disproof of God) and should be rejected. Therefore, God exists.
HUME - whatever we conceive of as existing, we can conceive of as not existing. It follows that there is no being that we cannot conceive to not exist, so no being can exist necessarily. Hume concludes:
“The words, therefore, necessary existence, have no meaning.”
MERELY CIRCULAR LOGICAL WHICH CANNOT BE FALSIFIED
it merely shows that ‘If’ God exists, then he exists necessarily.
PLATINGA - Our world is a possible world. Therefore, the maximally great and maximally excellent being must exist in our world too. Therefore, God exists
at most the ontological argument can make religious belief rational – it cannot prove that God actually does exist,
The problem here is that we seem to be able to conceive of a possible world without a maximally great and maximally excellent being – that’s no contradiction. We could also conceive of a maximally great and evil being – must that also exist?
