Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ARGUING FOR GOD BASED ON REASON (Gaunilo And His Criticisms (disagrees…
ARGUING FOR GOD BASED ON REASON
Anselm & The Ontological argument
Anselm's first argument
:one:
God is the greatest conceivable being, nothing greater can be concieved
Anselm argues that even atheists have an idea / can conceive a God even if they do not believe in it.
:two:
something that really exists is bound to be greater than something that just exists in thought
Think how delighted you would be if you won lots of money. But wouldn't it be better if it ACTUALLY happened?
The real thing is always greater than the version in thought
:three:
if there is no greater being than God, it must exist in reality as well as in thought
the reason is that if god only in thought we would be able to think of something greater, that is, a real God so if we can conceive a God
it would be contradictory to say he doesn't
apply step 2 to 1 and logically God MUST exist
Anselm's second argument
God being a necessary being
Analytic sentences
Analytic sentences tell us about logic and about language use. They do not give meaningful information about the world.
carries on with this argument :arrow_upper_right:
Anselm asks:
what is greater? A god that is thought but doesn't exist or A god that is thought but does exist
this has to be the second so that Anselm argued in his book proves God existence
Gaunilo And His Criticisms
disagrees with Anselm on this
Uses reduction absurdum to criticise it
imagine a perfect island, define it
something real is greater than in the mind
so the perfect island MUST exist
Kant And His criticisms
Part One: The mistake.
Two types of statements:
analytic statements - which are statements which we learn nothing new about the world
synthetic statement - are statements which tell us something about the real world. These statements can be verified or falsified by experience
when we say that god is a necessary being, this is a analytic statement
Necessary existence is part of our concept/ idea of god, but this tells us nothing about whether God actually exists.
we end up saying no more other than ' if God exists, then his existence is necessary'
Kant argues that the ontological argument is based on a mistake. what is the mistake?
Part Two: The Predicate
Kant argues that existence is not a predicate
It is not property that things either have or do not have
He presents the Ontological argument with a possible fatal challenge.
If God's necessary existence is an analytic statement, then it is a definition and tells us nothing about whether he actually exists.
If it is a synthetic claim, then there is nothing necessary about God's existence as only analytic statements have logical necessity
"God has existence" is not a predicate.
It is in Kant's words a 'miserable tautology'
Evaluating The Two
