Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT [ANSELM] - Coggle Diagram
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT [ANSELM]
Based on the claims that Gods existence can be deduced from his definition
Once God is correctly defined , there can be no doubt he exists
A PRIORI & DEDUCTIVE : The proposition 'God exists' is a priori - it can be known to be true without reference to sense experience, just by thinking about Gods nature
In the proposition 'God exists', the subject 'GOD' contains the predicate 'EXISTS' so god must exist
Gods existence is a necessary truth (could not possibly be false),not a contingent one (happens to be true, but might have been otherwise)
ANSELM PT1: PROSLOGIUM 2
P1: God is defined as 'That Than Which Nothing Greater Can Be conceived' [omnipotence/omniscience]
P2: Even a fool understands this definition in his mind, even though he does not understand it to exist in reality
P3: There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing it exists in reality
P4: Anselm uses analogy of painter who has an idea of what they will paint in their mind before creating the painting in reality
This is meant to show that there is a difference between an object being in the mind and being in reality.
P5: It is greater to exist in mind & reality > just the mind
P6: if god only existed in the mind then we could think of something greater ( a God who also exists in reality)
C; Therefore in order to be the most greatest conceivable being, God must exist both in mind & reality
GAUNILO'S CRITICISMS [gave Anselm chance to emphasise a second stage of his argument]
Used a parody of Anselm argument - he gave an ontological argument for the existence of a 'perfect lost island' which nothin greater can be conceived
P1: It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island
P2: its greater to exist in reality than only in the mind
P3: therefore the most perfect and real lost sals must exist in reality
He argues that in effect, Anselm argument can be used to prove the existence of an endless number of perfect objects
we can show that a perfect lost island does not exist
the real fool would be anyone that argued this way
Uses REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM as his method of argument (argument to absurdity)
ANSELM PT2: ONTOLOGICAL FROM PROSLOGIUM 3 [RESPONSIO]
Anselm points out difference between necessary and contingent existence
Everything you want to exist on your perfect island is contingent- can exist or not exist, dependent on other things to exist e.g palm tree will one day rot
P1: To be perfect, an island would have to be 'That than which nothing greater can be conceived'
P2: An island that which nothing greater can be conceived would have to exist necessarily since a contingent island would be less than perfect
P3: But islands are contingent, and so cannot exist necessarily
C: therefore the logic of the argument related to the perfect island doesnt apply to God
In summary, Anselm shows that necessary existence is a predicate only of God and not of things
KANTS CRITICISMS
EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE:
(he is replying to Descartes but applies to Anselm)
'existence' adds nothing to the concept of a thing
real predicates give us new knowledge of a subject
e.g imagining the predicates of 100 Thalers [coin], which are its round, metallic, gold- each new predicate adds to our concept of Thalers
But if we say it exists, we are told nothing of its nature and nothing new has been added to the subject
When applied to God, there is no difference between our concept of god, and god who exists
GOD EXISTING NECESSARILY DOENST MEAN HE EXISTS IN REALITY:
Anselm claim that the proposition 'God' exists necessarily' is analytic- true. y defenition
however it can only be known there is a god by experiencing god through senses
'God exists necessarily' is logically true but it doesnt follow that there really is a god
wouldn't fail if there was an 'if'- if there was a god, he would exist necessarily
STRENGTHS
Its a deductive argument- if it succeeds it is proof of god as it doesnt depend on anything we observe, and since human observation isnt always reliable, this is a good thing
the argument can be taken in a difffernebt way- namely the interpretation put upon by BARTH who claimed Anselm never intended the argument to be proof for gods existence
instead it was a result of a religious experience given to Anselm in which God revealed his nature as TTWNGCBC
For those with faith, it is true as its an expression of their faith
WEAKNESSES
many scholars reject it on basis of Kants objections (existence not a predicate & existing necessarily doesn't mean god exists in reality)
-Some argue any attempt to define God would limit god (e.g TTWNGCBC)
Anything that can be classified and analysed can be understood by humans , which is futile & irreligious
Aquinas instead we dont know gods definition so anslem must be wrong
however saying god is TTWNGCBC is really saying god has no limitation at all