The Ontological Argument Flashcards
What does ontology mean?
The study of existence
What type of reasoning does the ontological argument use?
a priori, deductive
What does aseity mean?
Self-existence
who are the main philosophers of the Ontological Argument
Anselm
Descartes
Norman Malcolm
Alvin Plantinga
Who are the main opposers of the ontological argument?
Gaunilo
Dawkins
Aquinas
Kant
John Hick
Russell
Give a summary of the premises for Anselm’s 1st formulation of the ontological argument
- It is true by definition that God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.
- God exists as an idea in the mind
- A being that exist in reality is greater than one which exists in the mind alone
- So a being than which none greater can be conceived must exist in reality.
Conclusion: God exists
Give a summary of the premises for Anselm’s 2nd formulation of the ontological argument
- That than which nothing greater can be conceived can’t be conceived as not existing i.e. being contingent
- Therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists with necessary existence (it’s impossible to conceive of it’s non-existence)
Conclusion: God must exist.
What is Gaunilo’s critique of Anselm’s argument?
You can use logic to prove anything exists by giving it the quality of aseity. Gaunilo’s island
How does Anselm respond to Gaunilo’s critique?
The qualities that make an island great are not qualities that admit to an intrinsic maximum. (e.g. You can’t have power greater than God’s.)
Give a summary of the premises for Descartes ontological argument
- God is, by definition, perfect
- An imperfect God would not be God
- If God is perfect he must contain all perfections, including the perfection of existence.
- If He did not exist, He wouldn’t be God
Conclusion: God must exists
What analogies does Descartes use to clarify his argument?
The predicate of existence can’t be separated from God like how a triangle having angles add to 180° or a valley having a mountain.
What are the strengths on the ontological argument?
- A priori/deductive - if the premises are true the definition must be true.
- Not based on observation/interpreting evidence - not relying on evidence that could be proved wrong at anytime.
- Logical - Don’t have to have experienced it to understand it.
- Based on definition accepted by all
- Different versions/interpretations - can prove it multiple ways.
What is Dawkin’s criticism of the ontological argument?
“but if it was real it would be even more perfect, because a really perfect thing would have to be better than a silly old imaginary thing. So I’ve proved that God exists. Nur Nurny Nur Nur, all athiests are fools”
What is Aquinas’ criticism of the ontological argument?
We do not know the essence of God - that must be shown to us through revealed theology.
We don’t have enough understanding of God’s nature to prove him through a priori evidence.
What is Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument?
- ‘God does not exist’ isn’t self-contradictory - to exist isn’t part of God’s definition. God only exists necessarily if He exists, if He exists His existence is necessary so He can’t not exist - this doesn’t prove he actually exists
- Existence isn’t a predicate - existence doesn’t add to our definition of God. e.g. if a Coin is old and gold that adds to our idea of the coin but the coin existing doesn’t.
What is Norman Malcolm’s response to Kant’s criticism?
- God as a subject can’t be denied, if we understand what ‘God’ means we can’t deny his existence, The phrase ‘If God exists’ can only be applied to contingent beings by definition God is necessary.
- ‘Necessary existence’ is a predicate and necessary existence does add to the concept of God.
Give a summary of the premises for Malcolm’s ontological argument
- God’s existence is either necessary, contingent or impossible.
- God’s existence can’t be contingent; as God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, so God’s existence can’t depend on anything else.
- God’s existence is therefore either necessary or impossible.
- God’s existence is not impossible - it is conceived that God exists. It is not a self-contradiction for God to exist.
Conclusion: God must exist necessarily.
What is John Hick’s criticism of Malcolm’s argument?
Malcolm equates ‘matter of fact impossible’ (something not possible due to real life) with ‘logically possible’ whereas these concepts are different.
It could be possible for God to exist; it doesn’t mean God can’t not exist.
Give a summary of the premises for Plantinga’s ontological argument
- A being with maximal excellence has the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection.
- A being with maximal greatness has maximal intelligence in every possible world.
- There is a possible world (W) in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
- This being must have maximal excellence in every possible world.
- Our world is a possible world
- A being of maximal excellence exists in our world.
Conclusion: God’s existence is a logical necessity
Criticism’s of Plantinga’s ontological argument
- It shows there’s a possibility God exists not a proof.
- This world (W) may not actually exist.
What are Russell’s criticism’s of the ontological argument?
Necessary existence is meaningless as necessity can only be applied to analytic statements so there’s no such thing as a necessary being.
