Philosophy- Ontological Argument Flashcards
(15 cards)
deductive reasoning
-if you agree with the premises of the argument, it is logical to agree with the conclusion
-priori, based on logic
Anslems Argument
-God is the greatest conceivable being
-difference between soemthing existing in intellectu and in re
-a real existent being would be greater than the one in intellectu
-therefore God exists
-God cannot he conceived not to exist
-God greatest conceivable being is analytic priori, concept of existence is part of concept of God just like 3 sides is part of concept of a triangle
-absurd to think of greatest conceivable being as not existing in reality
-‚he who understands that God so exists, cannot conceive that he does not exist’
reductio ad absurdum
-Anslem attempted to employ this reasoning
-way of disapproving argument by showing it’s logical consequences are absurd
-Anslem suggest it would be absurd to think of greatest conceivable being as not existing in reality
Gaunilo criticisms Anslem
-Just because we can conceive of a perfect being, doesn’t mean it exists in reality
-argued you could use the same logic to prove the existence of anything imagined as perfect
-example of a perfect island
-If it is the most perfect island, it must exist – otherwise, it wouldn’t be the most perfect (because it would be better if it existed)
-that’s absurd: you can’t define things into existence just by imagining the “greatest” or “perfect” version of them
-need to be some empirical proof
Anslem response to Gaulios Criticism
-argument should only be applied to necesssry, not contingent beings
-God has necesssry existence, different to an island which has contingent existence
Anslem Argument Premises
- God is the greatest conceivable being
- To be the greatest conceivable being, God has to exist in reality
Conclusion: God exists
Aquinas Criticisms of Aslem
-God existence is not self evident, it is not impossible to think of God as non existent
-God transcendent, cannot speak of him in human language, Anslem argument rely on definition of God
-God is ineffable, cannot out his divine qualities into words, cannot define him
-has to be more then definition to prove Gods existence, need evidence
Descartes Argument
-certain things that exist in mind which it is possible to know properties of
-e.g triangle, cannot think of a triangle without thinking of 3 sided shape, part of its essence, just as this essential to triangle, existence essential to notion of God, part of his essence
-even though these things are not in world of cannot be encountered through senses (empirically), does not mean they are not real or imaginary
-we know properties of triangle without seeing one, know existence property of God without having encountered him
Descartes Argument Premises
- God is a supremely perfect being and has all perfections
- Existence is a perfection
Conclusion: A supremely perfect being exists
Malcolm Argument
-believes there are 3 options
-God has necesssry existence OR God does not exist OR God has contingent existence
-rejects third one, as this would make God a ‚limited being, which by our conception of Him He is not’
-rejects second one as holds that Gods existence is not logically impossible, it is quite conceivable
-therefore thinks it must be option one
Problem with Malcolm Argument
-problem with him rejecting option ‚God does not exist’ just because it is ‚logically possible’ for him to exist
-it is possible for all kinds of things which do not exist it would be logically coherent that they coukd exist but we know they do not
-e.g we can conceive that unicorns exist, it would be logically coherent however we know they are mythical creatures
-rejection of option three ‚God has contingent existence’ rests on unproved assumption that zgód could not have contingent existence because of the definition he gives God as the greatest conceivable being
Kant criticism ontological
-rejects argument on grounds that it falsely treats existence as predicate (an attribute or quality of something that can be possessed or lacked)
-e.g Zebras have black and white stripes, predicate is black and white stripes, however does not mean all zebras have black and white stripes, not all predicates express properties
-says existence not predicate because it does not express anything about subject, saying ‚Zebras exist’ tells us nothing about what they are like
-whether or not something exists is not something that can be predicated of the object
-we must establish whether soemthing exists before we discuss predicates
Kant criticism Descartes
-while it is contradictory to think of triangle that does not have three angles, not contradictory to think of triangle and its angles not existing
-same with God, contradictory to think of him as not greatest conceivable being and all predicates that would go eith this, existence not one of those characteristics
-therefore, perfectly conceivable and non contradictory to think of God as not existing
Russel Criticism
-not only existence not a predicate, as Kant argued, but that something should only be described as having existence when occurrences csn be found in world
-only if there are such examples predicates csn be discussed
-therefore, to say ‚Tom exists and has blonde hair’ is unnecessary because Toms hair colour coukd only be meaningfully discussed on the basis that Tom exists in the world
Hume Criticism Anslem
-argues that notion of necesssry existence has ‚no meaning’ because ‚it will always be possible for us at any time to conceive the non existence of soemtbung we formerly conceived to exist’
-there is no contradiction in saying God does not exist
-this makes Gods existence contingent rather than necessary
-anythung in world or world itself coukd have necesssry existence, no reason this should only be attributed to God, even though no evidence of this it coukd still be the case we just don’t understand it yet
