Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Ontological Argument (Anselm (Anselm says that it is a better attribute to…
Ontological Argument
Anselm
Anselm says that it is a better attribute to exist de re (in reality) than to exist de dicto (in our thoughts and words
-
Second Version (in response to Gaunilo):
- God is the greatest possible being so nothing greater can be conceived
- It is better to be a necessary being than a contingent being
- If God exists only as a contingent being, so can therefore be imagined not to exist, than a greater being could be imagined that cannot be conceived not to exist
- This being would then be greater than God
- God is therefore a necessary being
- Therefore God must exist in reality
First Version:
- God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
- It is better for something to exist in reality than in the mind
- Therefore God must exist in the mind and in reality, because God only existed in the mind then we could conceive of something greater than God
- Therefore God exists
Criticisms
Immanuel Kant
God must have the predicate of existence only if God actually exists. If the concept of God does not exist, then all of God's predicates do not apply
Existence is not a predicate of a supremely perfect being. A supremely perfect being is no more perfect than one that does not exist. therefore a supremely perfect being does not necessarily exist.
Existence does not make anything more perfect. Because of this, a supremely perfect being does not necessarily have to exist
All existential problems - claims that certain things exist - are synthetic and therefore need to be checked using our senses. Therefore it is impossible to concretely prove God's existence a priori
God exists outside our spatio-temporal universe and so we cannot use our reasoning to discern him and he is beyond our reasoning abilities
Gaunilo - Perfect Island - By Anselm's logic, literally anything can be proven to exist. If I imagine a perfect island, and because it is more perfect to exist, it automatically exists. Response - Islands are contingent things whereas God is necessary. Rebuttal - By saying that God is necessary is assuming the very thing you are trying to prove and are therefore begging the question
Russell
Everyday use of language makes it impossible to talk about non-existent things with apparent meaning. He talks about the 'King of France': As soon as I talk about a meaningless entity, even if to state that it does not exist, I am implying that the concept is a valid one
By Anselm defining God the way he does, he already demonstrates that he accepts the existence of God as a necessary being and therefore the whole Ontological argument is useless
Additional Supporters
Norman Malcolm
Rejects the idea that existence is a predicate and also says that the argument will not convert the atheist but it will strengthen the belief of those who already believe
If God exists today, then he has always existed and will always exist and visa versa if he does not exist today. From this, he concluded that God's existence is either necessary or impossible
Alvin Plantinga
If God is the 'maximal greatness' then he can either have a necessary existence or not exist at all. If he has a contradiction in the actual world (which for God is impossible) then he would be impossible hence he exists in the actual world
-
Descartes
First Ontological Argument - The definition of God's existence is eternal, therefore God exists eternally. Just as you cannot separate the idea of 3 sides from a triangle, you cannot separate necessary existence from God and God's definition involves him existing
Second Ontological Argument - Because God is a supremely perfect being, he has every single attribute of perfection attributed to him. He therefore must have the attribute of existence as it is an attribute of perfection. Existence is a predicate of a perfect being.