Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The Existence of God - Argument from Reason - Coggle Diagram
The Existence of God - Argument from Reason
ontological argument
a priori
are true by definition
in the same way that 2+2 = 4
if it can be shown that God exists by definition, then a priori arguments work.
arguments
are simply logically true in the same way that the following argument is logically true
therefore, socrates is mortal
all men are mortal
socrates is a man
logical deductive argument
the argument either totally succeeds or totally fails - it is a logical deductive argument
Anselm's argument (2nd form)
the second form of the argument is developed to show the impossibility of conceiving of God as not existing
God cannot be. any lesser form of existence where it was possible not to be would not fit with the definition of god
Anselm's argument 1st form
Even the atheist can have this definition in his understanding
but if he has it in his understanding (in the mind) only, then there must be a greater being who exists both in the mind and reality (it is greater to exist both in mind and reality)
God is 'that than which nothing greater can be concieved' (refer to as ABC)
so, by the definition, God must exist both in mind and in reality
theory of the 2nd form
God is ABC
it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being
if God exists only contingently, it would be possible to imagine a greater being who exists necessarily
but if God is ABC, then that being has to be God
so God must be a necessary being and exist in reality
it is important to note that this is logical necessity and not factual necessity (the kind of necessity arrived at in the cosmological argument)
self contradictory (1st form)
another way of saying this is that it is self-contradictory to be capable of conceiving something that nothing greater can be thought, and at the same time to deny that something really exists
Descartes argument
existence is one of the essential characteristics (predicates) pf a supremely perfect being
uses 2 examples to illustrate his a priori reasoning:
triangle, to be a triangle, must have angles equivalent to 180. without this essence or predicate it is not a triangle
ida of a mountain cannot be separated from the idea of a valley
starts w definition of God = God is a supremely perfect being
supremely perfect being contains supremely perfect characteristics such as omnibenelovecne and omnipotence
in the same way, existence cannot be separated from essence of God. idea of existence is a predicate of God; it is part of the idea or essence of God. thus God must exist and God's existence is logically necessary
criticisms of the ontological argument
Kant's counterargument
if God exists he must be necessary, but only if. Definitions can only tell us what God would be like if he existed.
you cannot have an analytic statement to prove God's existence but a synthetic one when you provide external evidence to verify.
argues that 'it would be self - contradictory to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles, but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles'
K says that existence is not a real predicate. it does not give us any information about an object. 'to exist' merely means that an object is actual
quotation of existence adds nothing to a concept
'if we take the subject (God) with all its predicates (eg all knowledge), and say 'God is' or 'there is a God', we attach no new predicate to the concept of God ... merely posit it as being Ann object that stands in relation to my concept. the content of both must be one and the same... the real contains no more than the merely possible. a hundred real thalers (German coins) do not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers'
claims onotlogical arguments are invalid because existence is nit a real or determining predicate, predicates should add to our understanding, saying someone 'exists' does not add more information
uses the example of 100 silver thalers
saying that there 100 silver coins do not have any extra coins than 100 possible thalers, so that concept of 100 silver coins is the same whether real or not thus showing existence does not add anything to concept so existence isn't determining predicate
Gaunilo's counterargument
contrasted a reductio ad absurdum argument (disproving an argument by showing its absurd) to show the flaw in A's argument
you can form the idea this island in your mind
so according to Anselm's logic, it must exist in reality
imagine a lost island - the most excellent of all islands
but this is absurd, and is Ansel's argument
A replied that islands are contingent things and so do not have necessary existence, whereas God does
Gaunilo was a monk and a contemporary of Anslem, who argued you could not define things into exitence
Strengths
Kant's criticism are not successful
the definition of God includes the predicate of existence. existence is part of what it means ti be the greatest conceivable being (
Anselm
) or a supremely perfect being (
Descartes
)
a priori ontological arguments use reason only, not synthetic evidence. if you follow the premises, you have to come to the logical conclusion that God exists.
Descartes
argues that just as a triangle must have three sides, a mountain must have a valley, so existence cannot be separated from God
God is logically necessary. Anselm's second formulation showed that it is greater to be necessary than contingent. a logically necessary being cannot exist, so must exist
Gaunilo's criticisms are not successful
this is how a priori arguments work. if you agree with the original definition, that God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', then the rest of the premises and conclusion follow.
Platinga
support
Anselm
against
Gaunilo
, he states that an island has no intrinsic maxim - it can always be improved (eg by adding more palm trees). God however, has an intrisnsic maxim -he is the greatest conceivable being and cannot be any greater. therefore God exists
both
Gaunilo
and
Russell
imply we need empirical evidence to prove existence. but arguments that use empirical evidence, such as those from observation, also have problems
Anselm's ontological argument justifies belief in God
Anselm's argument is a priori because it is based on reasoning alone. like other rationalist arguments, we can argue that the sense deceive is it is better to rely on reason
following the premise of the argument, God has to exist because he is the greatest being conceivable so must exist in both mind and reality . it is valid reasoning to say that existence in mind and reality is greater than existence in mind alone
most people would agree with the definition of a God that A uses. If there is a God, God would be the greatest possible conceivable thing
Descartes ontological argument is stronger than K
Descartes argues that existence is a part of God's essential essence in the same way that a triag
angle must have three sides in order for it to be a triangle, or a mountain cannot be separated from its valley. existence cannot be separated from God
defines God as a supremley perfect being, which has all perfections including existence. existence is a predicate because it is part of the essence of God
God exists is an analytic statement.. it is like saying 'the existing God exists'. there is none to look for evidence because the term God, p[roperly understood, contains the idea of existence. God is logically necessary
Weaknesses
Kant's criticism are successful
a definition of a concept does not bring things into existenc. if we can think of things existing, then we cane also think of them not existing
is right ot argue that existence need synthetic verification. 'God exists' is not an analytic statement because it does not hold the truth needed to verify within the statement. you have to look for evdence, alll statements about things existing are synthetic and need external evdence
Gaunilo's criticisms are successful
Anselm is defining things into existence. it impossible to have a definition of something that exists only in the imagination
B Russell, suggested that existence is only meaningful if it refers to an 'instance of something. eg we see an 'instance' of cows but not of unicorns
it is possible imagine something in your mind, but it does not have to exist in reality. eg he understands what the greatest island would be like but it doesn't mean that it has to exist
Anselm's ontological argument does not justify belief in God
a priori arguments can also use invalid logic. it may be better to use empirically based on posteriori arguments, such as those from design, to prove the existence of God. at least then we have some evidence to use
we can disagree with Anselm''s reasoning and deny the premise. eg we can argue that it is better to exist in the mind alone as we can imagine things that are otherwise impossible, like flying carpets
is it possible to come up with a definition of God? It is ot so easy to define something of which we have no knowledge or that is not physical
Kant's criticism are stronger than D
if you have a triangle, it must have the definition if having three side and angles that add up to 180 degrees. but it is possible to reject both the concept and its definitoon. so I can think of a triangle as not existing, just as I can think of God not existing
argues that existence isn't a (determining) predicate because it doesn't add anything extra to the description. saying something is or something exists doesn't add anything to our understanding of it. so, Descartes is wrong to assume existence is a predicate
God exists = synthetic statement - all state=ments about existence are talking about an 'instamce' of something. you need to see evidence of things that exist. it is impossible to find satisfactory evidence of God. the ontological argument cannot prove God exists by using reason alone
a posteriori arguments are more persuasive