Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The Ontological Argument - Anselm - Coggle Diagram
The Ontological Argument - Anselm
Anselm was a monk + Archbishop of Canterbury, he presented the argument through a prayer, it reflects his viewpoint but is an almost scientific approach
'Ontos' - 'essence' - i.e. 'essence of God'
The argument - FORM TWO
P1: God = TTWNGCBC
P2: things exist either contingently or necessarily
P3: it is greater to exist necessarily than contingently
A1: God exists contingently
A1 + P3 = possible to conceive of a being greater than God (necessary super-God)
SO, is A1 = true, God is not TTWNGCBC, but P1 suggests God IS TTWNGCBC
This forms a logical contradiction
A1 = false
P2: God exists necessarily
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
The argument - FORM ONE
A priori - relies on logical deduction
Deductive - if premises are true, conclusion is true
P1: God = 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' (TTWNGCBC)
P2: things exist either in the mind (in intellectu) or in the mind + reality (in re)
P3: it is greater to exist in both the mind + reality than just the mind
A1 (assumption): God exists in mind only
A1 + P3 = possible to conceive of a greater being than God (super-God who exists)
SO, if A1 = true, God is not TTWNGCBC, but P1 suggests that God IS TTWNGCBC
This forms a logical contradiction
A1 = false
P2: God exists in mind + reality
PROOF BY CONTRADICTION
Overall, this suggests that God can be deducted by his definition
Plato's Realm of Forms
Chair analogy
For a chair to be a chair, it must have the minimum number of necessary attributes to be recognised
It must have all of these attributes or it can't be considered a chair
Everything has a timeless, unchanging form. Everything needs certain attributes to be considered so and recognisable
Anselm's application
Perfect being must contain these three attributes: omnipotence, omnibenevolence + omnipresence
To contain these attributes by definition, God has to exist
William Lane Craig
There is a maximally great being in every possible world
Idea of God = intuitively coherent idea
Example of a logically incoherent idea = married bachelor, as a bachelor is, by definition, married
Gaunilo
Analogy of the perfect island
AGAINST ANSELM
Can we conceive of the 'perfect island' in our minds
Anselm suggests that existence is part of perfection
THEREFORE: the image of a perfect island in our minds must exist necessarily because its existence is a requirement for perfection
'reductio ad absurdum' - argument to absurdity
Gaunilo was trying to reason that Anselm's argument could be used to prove existence of perfect objects - he knew a 'perfect island' didn't exist as such
HOWEVER: idea of a perfect island = contingent, God is a necessary being, so he's not comparing two like things
It's impossible to quantify the island, i.e. how many palm trees is the perfect number?
Comparing the incomparable, criticism can be seen as weak
Kant
1st criticism
Existence is not a predicate - not a necessary charcateristic of something
Whether something exists does not give us any new knowledge
We learn nothing from saying something exists
E.g. A black cow. Say it is an Aberdeen Angus cow - we are learning something new. Saying the cow exists provides no new information
Saying 'God exists' adds nothing to our understanding of him. only way we can know something is to experience it
Kant was a rationalist/empiricist - we learn through sense experience only
Kant challenges the basic foundations of the argument, suggests we can't use logic
Challenging the deductive and a priori nature of the argument
The argument has no basis in sense experience
Addresses Descartes' version of the argument, not Anselm directly
2nd criticism
May be able to accept statement 'God exists necessarily' to an extent
Just because we accept that God exists necessarily does not mean that he exists in reality - can't leap to this conclusion
Anselm's argument = analytic - true by definition (i.e. bachelor - unmarried man)
Argument claims that God = a necessary being, this is analytic
Kant: some things are true by definition - bachelor, yes, unicorn (horse with horn) yes - BUT only bachelors exist in reality
We know bachelors exist and unicorns don't through our experience, we can't prove this through logic - therefore we only know God through the same idea of experience
'God exists necessarily' can be logically true, but it doesn't follow that there really is a God
Descartes
His version, argument based on perfection as a necessary characteristic of God
God is a supremely perfect being
God possesses all perfections
Existence is a perfection
Therefore God exists
Descartes is saying existence is a predicate
Triangle analogy
Triangle has predicates, e.g. all angles must add to 180 degrees
If these predicates are removed, the triangle is no longer a triangle
In the same way, existence is a predicate of God
He is saying that existence must be part of Anselm's definition of God
More direct + concise version of ontological argument
Strengths
Deductive
If successful, it IS a proof of God's existence
Doesn't depend of observations
Ontological argument succeeds/fails by logic
Can be interpreted a different way
Karl Barth
Anselm never intended argument to prove God's existence
It was a result of religious experience where God revealed himself TTWNGCBC
Those with faith see argument as true - expression of their faith
Good way of learning difference between analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent etc - good way of learning philosophy
Weaknesses
Most scholars reject it, mainly from Kant's criticisms
Existence isn't a predicate
If 'existing necessarily' = part of God's definition, doesn't follow that God exists in reality
The objections don't disprove God's existence, but make it unlikely logic will prove him
Definition = TTWNGCBC, BUT some argue that defining God limits him. We can understand things that are classified + analysed. Some Christians: futile + irreligious
Aquinas: don't know God's definition, Anselm therefore wrong
TTWNGCBC suggests God has no limitations, however we can understand this concept
Other
Norman Malcolm
If God doesn't exist, God can't come into existence. His existence is impossible
If God does exist, then he can't come out of existence. His existence is necessary
P1: God's existence either necessary or impossible
P2: God's existence is not impossible - it isn't contradictory
Alvin Plantinga
Modal logic
P1: there is a possible world that has a being with maximal greatness (existing in all possible worlds)
P2: Maximal greatness includes in all worlds idea of maximal excellence (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence)
P3: this world is a possible world
C: This being exists in our world, so God exists
Aquinas
A priori arg can never prove God, must look for a posteriori evidence
Value for faith
Proslogium Ch4, fool of Psalm 14:1 - says in his heart 'There is no God'
Anselm: thing may be conceived in 2 ways
a. 'when the word signifying it is conceived' b. 'when the thing itself is understood
'Fire is water' example
a. words in statement understood easily b. someone who truly understands fire + water knows the statement is wrong
In the fool's case
a. words understood b. once you understand God = TTWNGCBC, you must understand that he exists
The God atheists don't believe in is not Christian God. Don't have an accurate sense of God
'... what I formerly believed by thy bounty, I now so understand by thine illumination... if I were unwilling to believe that thou dost exist, I should not be able not to understand this to be true.'
Some issues with this
If Anselm is right, atheists don't have the adequate idea of God, what stops them from saying Anselm's concept of him is inadequate? He invented it
TTWNGCBC doesn't tell us that God exists in reality
Anselm hints at a religious experience in his conclusion
Maybe like H.H.Price (belief in and that). Religion is of ultimate value. Atheists should try to 'believe in'. Maybe an atheist who doesn't believe in God is the same as someone who believes 'that' God exists. Belief 'in' is the only way to understand the whole dimension to life
Karl Barth: argument about faith not logic
Anselm had a religious experience of God where he understood God's necessary existence
Anselm suggests: belief in God comes before reasoning about him
Anselm's definition given through revelation
Just proving God by logic takes away value of revelation
AGAINST: Anselm's prayer directed at an atheist (fool). If it wasn't supposed to be a convincing logical proof, why does Anselm try so hard to prove it's true
Anselm in Proslogium preface: looking for a proof not reinforcing revelation
Why would Gaunilo reject it if Anselm was only telling others of his faith? He thinks it's a logical proof that fails. Anselm responds + they argue about logic, not faith
Argument has value for the already religious, more likely to accept as a logical proof
Fideists wouldn't agree
Faith doesn't depend on reason
Reject attempts to 'contain' God with logic
Faith loses value if we prove God by logic
Argument isn't an attempt to replace faith with logic
Faith = volitional state (act of will) motivated by love of God
'faith seeking understanding' = '... an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God'
Status as 'proof'
Disputed, some claim argument works, but most don't
Many: Kant's criticisms show it isn't a proof. It only shows that 'if' God exists, it is necessarily
Mathematical proof 2+2=4 - we don't doubt this. BUT many doubt the ontological argument, if it truly is a proof there wouldn't be doubt
Some see proof in Karl Barth's version - faith-based acceptance