Ontological Argument Flashcards
(22 cards)
Who are the key scholars for the ontological argument?
Anselm and Gaunilo.
Secondary = Descartes and Kant.
Is the ontological argument A priori or A posteriori?
A priori
What is an A priori argument?
Prior = before experience. Concerns facts that are known ‘before’ experience. Mathematics.
Things that are true, by definition (Tautologies). e.g. A triangle has 3 angles.
Deductive arguments.
Ontological Argument for the existence of God.
What is an A posteriori argument?
Post = after experience. Gained through experiences. Empirical method - using experience and observation to gain knowledge about the world.
Inductive argument. e.g. It is raining now.
Teleological and Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.
What is the key quote that defines the whole of the ontological argument?
“God is that that which nothing greater can be conceived.”
Who is Anselm?
A Benedictine monk, theologian and philosopher. Archbishop of God (1093-1109).
Defined God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
What is the meaning of Credo ut Intelligam? (Anselm’s motto in life)
“I believe in order to understand.” Anselm believed in the importance of faith that ‘belief precedes understanding’.
What is Anselm’s first formulation?
Psalms - “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”, the atheist and theists but understand this in the same way.
They both think of God and the greatest possible being - and therefore, God exists in everyone’s minds!
Explain what his conclusion of the first formulation is:
Because God is the greatest possible being, he must exist in reality and not just the mind alone, because then he would not be THE greatest being.
It would be a contradiction of the definition.
By DEFINITION, God must necessarily exist both in the mind and in reality!!
What kind of reasoning does the ontological argument use?
Deductive Reasoning - meaning that it is based on assumptions, he bases his conclusion of his assumption/ premise.
Explain who Gaunilo is and what his criticisms where:
A monk. Tried to show that the definition of God does not necessarily mean God exists.
He said that YOU CANNOT DEFINE GOD INTO EXISTENCE!
What is the example that Gaunilo uses to criticise Anselm?
The perfect island example.
Even if this island is the ‘greatest possible island’ it does not mean that this island exists! You need actual empirical evidence to prove it!
What exists in your imagination, does not necessarily exists in reality.
What further problem does the ‘perfect island’ argument raise for a Christian God?
Because everyone’s island is different - it goes against monotheism!
It is entirely subjective.
What is Anselm’s rebuttal/ reply to Gaunilo’s criticism? (Second formulation)
He said that Gaunilo is mistaken.
God is a special case - Islands are CONTINGENT whereas God is NECESSARY. You cannot compare God to an Island.
Contingent beings are dependent on other things. Therefore necessary beings are better than contingent beings.
Therefore God must be necessary as he is the greatest possible being!
Does Anselm successfully refute Gaunilo?
No - you cannot define God into existence; e.g. gossip - just hearing or believing something does not mean it is true! We do not have common understanding/ belief of God, and everyone has a different idea of God.
How does Descartes develop Anselm’s argument? (In support of Anselm)
- I have the idea of God
- He is a supremely perfect being
- Existence is a perfection
- Therefore, God must exist
Existence is central to the essence of God. It is a DEFINING PREDICATE OF THE CONCEPT OF GOD! (Just like it is a predicate for a triangle to have three angles).
What is a quote by Descartes explaining his development?
“Existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than the fact that its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle, or the idea of a mountain that can be separated from the idea of a valley.”
You cannot separate God from existence any more than you cannot separate a mountain from a valley.
What are Kant’s are criticisms?
1) DESCARTES’ ARGUMENT USES FLAWED LOGIC: The triangle only had three angles IF the triangle exists in the first place!! IF God exists, then God exists necessarily. But if God does not exist, then he does not necessarily exist.
2) EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE: Existence is not a predicate at all - it adds nothing to our understanding of a concept to say that ‘x exists’. You cannot say that something exists ‘because it possesses existence’!
What example does Kant use as a criticism?
The example of 100 thalers. The predicates e.g. = they are round etc.
If you say they exists, it adds nothing and does not prove that they actually exist.
What examples does Bertrand Russell give as adaptations to Kant’s example?
- “The present KinG of France is bald” is incorrect and the statement “the present King of France isn’t bald” is also incorrect.
- The King of France doesn’t exist!
- He argues that when the subject’s existence is uncertain, normal linguistic logic cannot apply.
OR - Men exist
- Father Christmas is a man
- Therefore, Father Christmas exists
Name three strengths of the Ontological argument:
+ A strength of A priori arguments are that if you accept the premise then the conclusion must be true.
+ For those who share the same definition of God, it is a philosophically convincing confirmation of their faith in God.
+ Gaunilo’s response is unsatisfactory as you cannot compare God to an island!
+ Descartes’ more contemporary version may be logically satisfying for some theists. No reliance on empirical evidence.
Name three weaknesses of the Ontological argument:
- An a priori argument fails if the premise is inaccurate.
- Only works for people who share the same definition of God with Anselm.
- Aquinas said it is impossible to understand the essence of God - our human minds = limited.
- Gaunilo: you cannot define an Island into existence and you cannot define God into existence.
- Kant: Ontological arg. uses flawed logic. Existence is not a predicate!
- Alstom: Epistemic Imperialism - people want evidence for their beliefs. Argument is not empirical so is not appealing.
