Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
UNIT 2c- ARGUMENTS FROM REASON- The Ontological Argument - Coggle Diagram
UNIT 2c- ARGUMENTS FROM REASON- The Ontological Argument
Proof of existence of God through logic. A priori proof.
Ontology= the study of being
DEDUCTIVE= Starting from an idea and attempting to prove it through definition.
PREDICATE= An intrinsic property of quality of something. E.g the predicate of a chair is having 4 legs with the ability to hold the body weight.
ANALYTIC- A priori proof.
EXISTENCE IS AN ANALYTIC PROPOSITION OF GOD. EXISTENCE IS A PREDICATE OF GOD. In order to understand the concept of God we must accept God's existence. We can't understand God without accepting that they exist.
ANALYTIC PROPOSITIONS: predicate concept is contained in it's subject concept.
All bachelors are unmarried. All triangles have three sides.
SYNTHETIC PROPOSITION: Predicate concept is not contained in it's subject concept but is related.
"all bachelors are unhappy" we do not need to understand the predicate of unhappy in order to understand bachelors- we would need to empircally verify this.
ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
11th century Archbishop and medieval Christian theologian and philosopher.
Justifies God's existence APRIORI
Relied on knowledge from reasoning rather than the senses.
RATIONALIST- Faith and reason are symonymous. "I believe in order to understand"
Faith comes from scripture and tradition, but also from rational arguments.
Anselm wrote in PROSLOGIAN a priori deductive proof for God's existence. Attempts to argue the necessary existence of God through the definition of God.
God is "THAT THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE CONCIEVED"
you cant imagine anything greater than God
God is perfect in every way.
God is perfect in every way which means he must exist, because he would not be perfect if he did not exist. If he only existed in the mind we could not imagine a more perfect God- one that existed in the mind and in reality.
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IN A NUTSHELL= Something is greater if it exists in reality than if it doesn't. If God is 'that than which nothing greater can be concieved', he must exist under this logic. If he did not, you could imagine something greater- something with all his qualities but did actually exist.
PSALM 14 AND 53- Aquinas uses these to support his definition that God is the greatest being that can be concieved.
Analytic argument= statement is true by definition. No a posteriori proof needed. By accepting the concept of God you accept the concept of God's existence which is undenyable.
Something is greater if it exits in re, rather than in intellectu
Anselm put forward two ontological arguments- one leading off from the other.
God is the greatest being that can be concieved.
God exists as a necessary being that supports all contingent beings. A necessary being is the greatest thing that a human can concieve.
"The fool says to himself there is no God"
ANSELMS FIRST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT outlined in Proslogion 2
P1
God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved (Atheists would agree that this is the definition of God even if they did not believe in him)
P2
Something that exists in reality is bound to be greater than something that just exists in thought
P3
If there is no greater being than God, God has to and must exist in reality as well as in thought
CONCLUSION
Apply P1 and P2 and God must exist. The reason is that if God only existed in thought we would be able to think of something greater, that is, a real God. So if we can concieve of God it would be contradictory to say he doesn't exist.
ANSELMS SECOND ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT outlined in proslogian 3
P1
It is, from Prologion 2, impossible to conceive of God not existing.
P2
God is a necessary being as he is the greatest thing we can concieve (as seen in pros 2)
P3
If God were a contingent being this is not the greatest being we can concieve
CONCLUSION
It is necessary for God to exist according to his definition
GAUNILO'S CRITICISMS OF ANSELMS ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Christian theologian and philosopher. A monk who was a friend of Anselm's. As a monk, he never doubted the existence of the Christian God.
He thought Anselm's argument was flawed. He replied to Anselm's argument with "reply on behalf of the fool"
He believed God could only be proved synthetically a posteriori
GAUNILO'S FIRST CRITICISM
It is is impossible for humans to think of a fully perfect being. Gaunilo points out that through Anselm's method you are just defining God into existence by calling him the greatest being that can be concieved rather than actually proving that he exists.
"An object can hardly or never be conceived according to a word alone"
GAUNILO'S SECOND CRITICISM
Island criticism
A friend tells him of a perfect Island but says the island would be better if it was real rather than just imagination. Then according to Anselm, this Island must exist, otherwise we would be able to think of a more perfect Island. Just because you can percieve something perfect in your mind, does not mean it exists in reality. FACTS ARE NEEDED. YOU CANT MOVE FROM THOUGHT TO REALITY.
ANSELM'S PETTY LITTLE RESPONSE
Anselms response to 'THE FOOL'. Anselm reminded Gaunilo that the Island is not the same concept as God. An island is contingent, whereas God is necessary and relies on nothing to exist.
Islands have 'NO INTRINSIC MAXIMUM' Meaning you can always think of a better island as our idea of a perfect island can change and be subjective. However, with God, it is impossible to conceive of a being that is greater than an all loving, all knowing and perfect God. God is not temporal or contingent like an island therefore his existence is necessary
GAUNILO ONLY ATTACKED THE ANSELMS FIRST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, He did not criticise the second.
DICK MUNCHER DESCARTE'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM 'MEDITATIONS'
Aim was to doubt everything that Descartes possibly could to see what he could not doubt. PHILOSOPHICAL/ METHODOLOGICAL SCEPTIC
If he could concieve of his own existence - 'i think therefore i am'. he could also concieve of the existence of a perfect being.
Descartes' definition of God is a 'supremely perfect being'.
P1
God is a supremely perfect being
P2
A supremely perfect beings contains all perfections
P3
Existence is a supreme perfection
CONCLUSION
Therefore God is a supremely perfect being and exists
ANALOGIES
TRIANGLE ANALOGY
A triangle is a plane figure with 3 straight sides and 3 angles- these are predicates of a triangle. A triangle has these predicates in the same way that existence and perfection are predicates of God. Therefore God is the most perfect being, so he must exist. Existence is part of being a supremely perfect being.
MOUNTAIN ANALOGY
You cannot have a mountain without a valley- you cannot have God without existence as existence is part of Gods perfection.
NORMAN MALCOMS ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (20th century)
Argued for the 'NECESSARY EXISTENCE' of God.
The statement 'God Exists' is either a) impossible b) God exists contingently c) God exists necessarily.
A is rejected because it is perfectly conceivable to think of a God or higher being. B is rejected because God would be limited and this is not how he is by definition. Therefore C is correct.
Disgarees with Anselm that existence is a predicate of God. But he agrees that God is the greatest being that we can concieve.
PLATINGA'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (21st century)
discusses the idea of "possible worlds/ possible instances/ situations"
If there is a possible world that God exists within, then God necessarily exists in every possible world.
The way in which the universe might have been- worlds different to this one.
Argued that there are necessary truths that exist in all possible worlds. When we say that God exists, this is a necessary truth by definition because God is necessary- it is impossible for God not t exist in every possible world/ instance/ situation.
God has 'MAXIMAL GREATNESS' which exists in all worlds.
P1
A being only has maximal greatness if it exists in all possible worlds
P2
The property of being maximally great exists in every possible world/ instance
P3
Therefore the property must exist in our world
CONCLUSION
God exists in our world.
EVALUATION
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT DOES NOT PROVE ANALYTICALLY THAT GOD EXISTS
GAUNILO
de dicto to de re. Gaunilo accuses Anselm of moving from de dicto necessity to de re necessity which is illogical.
AQUINAS
God can only be proved synthetically, a posteriori proof. We can only know God indirectly through empirical observation. God's existence is not self evident to us in the same way that a triangle's three sides are. This is because God is beyond human comprehension so we cannot simply reason him into existence through the thinking phrases outlined in the ontological argument. The phrase 'GOD EXISTS' is beyond the limits of human understanding as we cannot fully comprehend the greatness of God. If we knew empircally God's nature and essence, we would know that he is necessary and be able to prove his existence analytically.
KANT
Existence is not a 'GREAT MAKING QUALITY'- it does not qualify to be a predicate of something
An imaginary pile of coins will have the same number as a real pile of coins. By saying that the imaginary pile of 100 coins exists you are just saying that it is not imaginary but the number of coins stays the same. Saying that the pile of coins exists does not add anything to our understanding of the nature of the coins- we can still understand them without them being real. EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE OF COINS- IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR THEM TO EXIST FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THEM.
Even if we accept the analytic a priori statement that "God necessarily exists", it does not mean God exists in reality.
"unicorns are horses" is true by definition- you cannot understand a unicorn without a horn however unicorns do not exist in reality. It is the same with God necessarily exists- he may necessarily exist but this does not mean that God exists necessarily exist in reality.
ATHEISTS
The whole argument relies on accepting the definition of God. Atheists may not change their views just because the logic is sound, instead the otnological argument should be used to help believers gain a deeper understanding of God.
THE WHOLE ARGUMENT RELIES ON ACCEPTING THAT GOD IS THAT THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE CONCIEVED. 1) This is simply a human made concept and definition, so it cannot be used as a premise and cannot be used to prove God's existence. 2) some people may definitely be able to concieve something greater than God.
HUME
Necessary being criticism- God can be denied it's existence so is not necessary.
RUSSELL
You cannot prove God a priori. God cannot be defined into existence. SYLLOGISM:
P1 Men exist in the world
P2 Santa Claus is a man
C Santa Claus must exist.
Just because the argument is deductive and the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises does not mean that the premises are true in the first place.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO PREDICATE SOMETHING IF THAT SOMETHING (GOD) CANNOT BE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT PROVES ANALYTICALLY THAT GOD EXISTS
ANSELM'S PAINTER EXAMPLE
If a painter imagines a painting that has yet to be created it is not as great as the painting that is created in reality.
EPISTEMIC DISTANCE
God is distant from human beings in that we are unable to fully concieve them and understand them. We lack knowledge and are ignorant. This means there is no conclusive evidence for or against because the world is religiously ambiguous.
in intellectu and in re
To exist in re is greater than existing in intellectu in the same way that existing necessarily is greater than existing contingently.
DESCARTES
"God is the sum of all perfections" Existence is a predicate of God so he must exist analytically.
NORMAN MALCOM REACTS TO KANTS CRITICISMS
Existence in the ordinary contingent kind is not a predicate but necessary existence which only applies to God is different. Existence is not something that helps define one thing from another so it would not usually be a predicate but necessary existence draws a distinction between us and God.
SYNTHETIC AND ANALYTIC STATEMENTS
ANALYTIC
a priori, rationalism, uses logic, looks at truths by definition and language
SYNTHETIC
a posteriori, empiricism, uses sense experience, looks at truths based on evidence.
CAN EXISTENCE BE TREATED AS A PREDICATE?
Kant says existence is not a predicate- it is not a characteristic of somethinf but is in a different category to characteristics. Somethings existence is not a predicate. Saying something exists is to say that is has the status of being a real thing. It is not a 'great making quality'
existence is in a different category to having talent or virtue CATEGORY ERROR.
MALCOM says existence in the ordinary contingent kind might not be a predicate, but necessary existence which only applies to God, is different. existence is not something that usually helps us to define one thing from another, and so it is not usually a predicate. NECESSARY EXISTENCE IS A CHARACTWRISTIC THAT DRAWS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HUMANS AND GOD, SO IT IS A PREDICATE.