Ontological argument Flashcards
(12 cards)
what is anselms ontological argument
the term ‘ontological’ as applied to Anselm’s argument is a consequence of how the argument was viewed in a later period by the philosopher Immanuel Kant
Anselm’s ontological argument states that the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being implies his existence, as a being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. - god has to exist because it is his nature to exist
Anselm wanted to sort out a pure, clear and simple argument to confirm and express the faith of the Christian in God.
Anselm claims that his approach is that of fides quaerens intellectum, that is, ‘faith in search of understanding’. The critical point is that for Anselm, faith, belief in God, was the presupposition, the basis, the starting point, for the sort of theological reflection
who was Anselm
Archbishop of Canterbury and a benedictine monk
he produced the ontological Argument from the perspective of ‘faith seeking understanding’ not to convert unbelievers
he set out his argument in his proslogion
what is the first part of anselms Ontological argument
god is that than which nothing greater can be though
a real existent being would be greater than an imaginary, illusory being
therefore the concept of god is surpassed by an actual existent god
in order to meet our definition of god he must exist, as a real god would be better than an imaginary one and god is greater than anything that can be thought
what is the second part of anselms Ontological argument
contingent vs necessary existent
contingent - those which come in and out of existence and rely on others for there existence are inferior to beings with necessary existence - eternal and rely on nothing else for there existence
and as god is than which nothing greater can be though he must be necessary as if he wasn’t then he wouldn’t be than which nothing greater can be though
what are analytic and synthetic propositions
analytic- true by definition eg bachelors are unmarried men - there is nothing we need to do to test this is true as we know through deduction
Anselm in the Ontological argument is arguing that the statement ‘god exists’ is analytic as the term God would require him to exist
synthetic - proposition which adds something to our understanding beyond the definition of the word and we need more deduction to know if its true or not eg the corner shop sells newspapers
Anselm argues that ‘god exists’ is an analytic a priori statement he made reference to psalm 53:1 - ‘the fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’
didn’t understand how we could have the concept of God as ‘than which nothing greater can be thought’ without realising that god exists
Anselm said ‘why, then, did the fool say in his heart ‘god is not’ since it is so obvious to the rational mind that you exist supremely above all things?’
what are gaunilo’s criticisms
gaunilo was a French monk ad first to raise objections to Anselm
he was Christian like Anselm but thought anselms argument was not logical
Gaunilo constructed a reductio ad absurdum argument (disproving an argument by showing it’s absurd)
his argument is - imagine the most perfect island if using anselms logic the island must exist in reality otherwise it is not the most excellent island - ‘if a man should try to prove to me by such reasoning that this island truly exists and that its existence should no longer be doubted either I should believe that he was jesting’
shows the absurdity of the argument
Anselm was impressed with gaunilos Argument but responded that an island is contingent while god is necessary- the argument only works when applied to god because of his uniqueness
what are aquinas criticisms of Anselm
he believed that the existence of God should be shown through a posteriori Arguments
one of his points was that gods existence cannot be regarded as self- evident as if we can imagine the concept of the non existence of god then it must be possible
he also questioned whether everyone would accept anselms definition of god of that which nothing greater can be thought - he believed although we can approach an understanding of God , he will still remain unknowable to humans - ‘perhaps not everyone who hears the name ‘god’ understands it’
he believed that the Ontological argument only proves that the concept exists in peoples minds not in reality
what is decartes’s version of the ontological argument
he reformulated the ontological argument in his work ‘meditations’
descartes like Anselm and plato believed we were born with some ready made ideas of - cause, shape number and God
argues that the very idea of God implies existence because existence is a necessary attribute of perfection. He claims that a being that lacks existence is not a complete or perfect representation of God
god has all perfections and existence is perfection so god therefore exists
descartes also believes that god is unchanging so must have always and will always exist
‘existence can no more be separated from the essence of god’ - meditations
hunk
bbjvju
Cancel
Submit
what is Karl Barths interpretation
Barth’s interpretation of the ontological argument is that Anselm is not here providing an argument whose logic must convince us that God exists (which Anselm also states) but rather one which is an expression of faith, in which the existence of God is presupposed. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the argument should fail as a proof because to provide a proof for the man outside faith was never Anselm’s intention
what is Kants criticism
kant was arguing against decorates version
According to Kant the confusion lies in the fact that existence is not a predicate
‘existence is not a predicate’ meaning it is not a characteristic or an attribute of something like green, blue, hard, round
but existence is not - it does not tell us anything about an object that would help us to identify it in anyway
kant used the example of Prussian dollars
he argued adding exists to the idea of god does not add anything new to what we understand by god much like an imaginary £100 is not added if we substitute it for a real £100- ‘a hundred real dollars contain no more than a hundred possible dollars’
what are Bertrand Russells criticisms
asked us to think of the statement ‘ the present king of France is bald’ which is not true however does this make ‘the present king of France not bald’ no as there is no present king of France
our use of words and the way we apply predicates like bald or not bald is not enough to demonstrate that something exists
