Ontological Argument Flashcards
(26 cards)
What you would write in an essay intro - 4 main points
Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument was first proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century, in his work Proslogion (1077-1078).
It is an a priori argument for the existence of God, which means it attempts to prove the existence of God through use of reason and definitions alone.
Anselm argues that the very definition of God as the ‘greatest conceivable being’ inherently implies God’s existence.
It is a deductive argument so the conclusion logically follows from the premises; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
What his aim was
Anselm’s goal with the OA
To seek understanding from a perspective of faith, not to convert nonbelievers
Anselm’s definition of God
‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’
Money
Analogy to support Anselm’s idea that it is greater to exist both in intellectu and in re than just in intellectu
What is greater, a huge heap of money that exists in your imagination only or that same heap of money on your kitchen table?
No one can seriously argue that a non-existent God would surpass an existence God in greatness
Anselm’s first form of the OA
P1) God is the greatest conceivable being
P2) It is greater to exist in reality than the mind alone
P3) God exists in the mind
C = Therefore, God exists in reality
Anselm’s painter example for his 1st formulation of the OA
Anselm uses the illustration of a painter who has an idea of what they will paint in their mind before painting it in reality.
Which highlights thee concept of something (like God or a painting) can exist in the mind alone, but it is greater if it exists both in the mind and in reality.
The fool
Idea that demonstrates everyone can conceive of God
Anselm points to Psalm 14:1 “the fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’.”
An atheist says they do not believe in God. That implies they at least have an idea of God in their mind.
Contradiction
Strength of Anselm’s reasoning in first formulation of OA
Demonstrates clearly that God cannot be an idea that exists in the mind alone.
Existing in reality clearly greater - God is the greatest being, so conceiving of anything greater is incoherent. So, our idea of God must therefore be of a being that exists in reality. To say that God does not exist in reality is to say that the greatest being is not the greatest being. It is self-contradictory.
Anselm’s 2nd formulation of the OA
1) God is the greatest conceivable being
2) Because God is unsurpassable in every way, God must have necessary existence
3) Therefore God exists - necessarily
Explanation of Anselm’s 2nd formulation of OA
God must exist because a necessary being cannot fail to exist - only contingent beings do that.
Necessary existence is intrinsic of God’s very nature and definition - makes no sense to talk of a God that doesn’t existence - then wouldn’t be God
‘God exists’ as an analytic statement
An analytic statement is one true by definition e.g. ‘all bachelors are unmarried men’ - do not need to test this - as long as we know what a batchleor is we can accept he is an unmarried man because that is included in the very concept of a bachelor.
In the same way, ‘God exists’ can be known by definition - does not require testing - the concept of God includes the concept of existence - without existence the term ‘God’ would not apply
Strength of Anselm’s OA - his definition of God
Anselm uses a theologically and philosophically convincing definition of God, carefully designed to avoid the problem of defining something that is beyond our understanding.
Anselm presents an analogy. We can’t fully look at the sun but can still see daylight. Similarly, we can’t fully know God, but can at least understand that he is the greatest conceivable being.
Understanding
Critic of Anselm’s OA: Gaunilo - his definiton of God
God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding.
Gaunilo draws on the traditional Christian premise that God is so mysterious and other to argue that God therefore cannot be in the understanding.
The ontological argument seems to fail because it relies on our ability to understand and reason about things that are beyond our ability to understand or reason about.
Critic of Anselm’s OA: Aquinas - definition
God’s nature, such as the ‘eternal law’ is beyond our understanding and that people have different understandings of God.
“Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought” – Aquinas.
Gaunilo’s first criticism of OA fails
Gaunilo’s argument is unsuccessful because a full understanding of the greatest conceivable being or of God’s nature is not required for the ontological argument to work.
Peter van Inwagen - Anselm believes we only have partial knowledge of God and this limited understanding of God is enough to justify attributing the name “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” to God.
Anselm doesn’t rely on conceiving the being itself. We can grasp the concept of a being greater than which none may be conceived. We can then follow Anselm’s reasoning that since it is greater to exist, that being must exist.
Defending Anselm against Aquinas
Anselm doesn’t rely on conceiving the being itself. We can grasp the concept of a being greater than which none may be conceived. We can then follow Anselm’s reasoning that since it is greater to exist, that being must exist.
Anselm’s definition is broad enough to encompass the general Christian idea of God - described as omnipotent, omnibenevolent etc these words suggest he is the ‘greatest’ so the definition is appropriate.
Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ response to Anselm
Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality.
Gaunilo illustrates this with the case of a perfect lost island, an illustration of a thing whose real existence is ‘uncertain and doubtful’ yet exists in his understanding as a concept.
Applying the logic of Anselm’s argument to this island has an absurd result (reductio ad absurdum). It is greater for this island to exist in reality, so it must exist. This would work not just for an island. The greatest or supremely perfect member of every category must exist. This is sometimes called the ‘overload’ objection because it suggests that reality would be overloaded with greatest/perfect things.
Anselm’s defence against Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ criticism
Anselm responds that a proper understanding of his argument showed that it can only prove the existence of God. Testing the logic through applying it to a different case like an island is not valid.
Something is greater if it doesn’t depend on anything for its existence. No matter how great or perfect an island is, in order to be an island it will be dependent on something else to exist, such as an ocean, planet, sun, etc. So, the greatest possible Island will be contingent, which means by definition it could either exist or not.
The existence of contingent beings cannot be proven a priori because their existence is not a matter of definition. Their existence is a matter of whether what they depend on exists.
God = a necessary being. So, the reason for the logic not working in the case of the island (or any contingent being) does not apply for God.
Anselm’s response is strong because it is clear there is something unique about God’s existence. Our ordinary way of understanding existence does not apply.
Descartes Ontological Argument
P1 – I have an idea of a supremely perfect being which contains all perfections
P2 – Existence is a perfection
C3 – God exists
Triangle example - three sides
A priori
Hume’s empiricist response to the ontological argument
Hume rejects a priori demonstrations of existence - ‘there is an evident absurdity’ in trying to prove existence through a priori arguments.
Hume’s rejection of a necessary being
Hume rejects the concept of a ‘necessary being’.
A necessary being must exist. So, we shouldn’t even be able to conceive of it not existing. However, Hume claims that 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, our mind is incapable of giving meaning to the idea of a being existing necessarily.
Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate
Existence is not a property a thing possesses. Saying something exists does not add to our understanding of a thing.
A thing that exists would be conceptually different to that same thing when not existing.
If existence were a predicate, then 100 thalers (coins) in reality would be conceptually different to 100 thalers in the mind.
Malcolm defending Anselm against Kant
Malcolm defended Anselm’s approach, arguing that Kant only shows that contingent existence is not a predicate.
Something is contingent if it is dependent on something else for its existence. The reason for the existence of a contingent thing is external to it and so does not describe or define it. However, a necessary being doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence. It contains the reason for its existence within itself. ‘necessary existence’ therefore does describe something about a being. It is a defining part of a thing in a way that contingent existence is not. So, necessary existence is a predicate.
Kant made the same mistake that Gaunilo did. We cannot test the logic of the ontological argument through its application to contingent things, such as islands or thalers. Like Gaunilo, Kant did not fully appreciate the significance of God’s necessity and the consequently truly unique nature of God’s relationship with existence.
Hartshorne against Kant
Existence does add to a concept so is a predicate
E.g just describing symptoms of a cold is very different from having a cold
