Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Arguments based on reason - Coggle Diagram
Arguments based on reason
Anslem's ontological argument
anselms point is that athiests know what they are rejecting - they understand god because they have to understand god to say he doesnt exist
painter analogy - a painter imagines their painting and so it exists in his or her mind - once the painting is painted it exists both in the painters understanding and in reality - Anselm separates two different types of existence - in the mind and in reality
the definition of god is 'that which nothing greater can be concieved of' - god is the greatest possible thing
therefore god exists in everyones mind
it is greater to exist in reality than just the mind (the painting)
for example, £1000 in my hands is better than just in my mind
therefore god must exist in reality as well as in the mind and must then exist
additionally necessary beings are obviously better than contingent beings
so if god were a contingent being then he wouldnt be the greatest possible being
this means god must be a necessary being
therefore he must exist
Gaunilo vs Anselm
the perfect island
he says imagine the greatest conceivable but lost island in a different ocean - it has all riches and delicacies
if you were told about that island you would be able to imagine it - it would exist in your mind
suppose you were then told that there could be no doubt that this island exists because logically it must be so as it is more excellent to exist in reality than just the mind
you would not feel that anyone has proven anything to you because nobody had shown you that its existence was there in the first place
Anselm fails to prove god exists
Gaunilo argues it doesn't have to exist - firstly, because there will always be a greater island e.g. One with more palm trees, one with homemade pies etc.
The second reason he rejects this is because if we can imagine it, it does not mean it has to exist. We can imagine all manner of things, but they do not exist
other points
we have plenty of unreal objects in our minds
we may even believe something unreal that someone tells us but this doesnt make it real e.g. gossip
the analogy of the painter doesnt work because there is a real difference between the initial idea and the final product
we do not necessarily all have a common understanding of god - a being greater than all other beings might be different for different people
you can never fully understand from description alone
you cannot define something into existence
anselms reply
the moment you decide that there could be a being that which nothing greater can be conceived of you have placed it in you mind and this is what god is - it becomes a contradiction to say that there s a greatest possible being and that this might not exist - god is a special case
Anselm accuses gaunilo of misplacing his logic - anselm was not talking about any object when he made his points but of god, a necessary being, who is the greatest possible being - the island is a contingent thing
Kants critisms
objection 1
begins by supposing that it is true that existence is part of what it means for god to be perfect - he uses the example of a triangle, we know that having three angles is part of what it means for a triangle to be a triangle
kant says that this example comes from a judgement and not from the triangle and its existence
a judgement however is not the same as the absolute necessity of something
the triangle therefore only has three angles if the triangle exists in the first place
for kant ontological arguments are bad logic because they make us suppose that if we justify gods perfection as including existence we are assuming that god exists - circular logic
we can make up an object and define it in any number of ways but this does not make the object exist in reality even though the definition will continue to be true
so kant ultimately says that if god exists then god necessarily exists - but if the subject doesnt exist in the first place then there is no possible contradiction
for Kant, to truly prove the existence of God, we must have synthetic arguments (ones that use evidence)
Kant's criticisms are further strengthened by arguments from Russell
he suggests that adding existence only tells us that thing is represented, it is not a predicate
if we discussed cows, adding that they exist does not tell us anything about the cow, saying they are spotty does
objection 2
kants second objection is about the nature of existence as a predicate - kant does not believe that existence is a proper predicate
a book is blue tells me about a book but the book exists adds nothing just as god exists adds nothing to the understanding of god
it uses existence incorrectly; as a predicate
adding existence adds nothing to the nature of something and so cannot prove God exists
If I described my school bag to you as being blue, green and it exists, the addition of existence would not help us.
assessing the ontological argument
existence as a predicate
existence is not a determining predicate and therefore doesnt give us information in the same way that other predicates might
Anselm replys by saying in the case of god we can say existence is a predicate because we are attributing existence in divine terms to god - perfect existence
logical fallacies
can god be defined into existence?
is anselms definition of god as the greatest possible being appropriate?
is a greatest possible being logical?
is it fair to say that everyone has a common understanding of god in their minds?
is the argument as a whole a play on words? is the existence of someone the same as the essence of that person?
if god can be experienced in any way then is the ontological argument needed?
justifying belief?
anselms writing was to give glory and praise to god - it could be argued that it is a meditation on gods existence for the believer more than a proof to the non believer
a priori v a posteriori
a priori are better
our experience can always deceive us - e.g. we may be unwell or psychological factors might influence is
a priori arguments work within defined terms and so the logic is easier to follow through
modern forms of the ontological argument are more convincing than the traditional ones
experiences and observations of the world are unreliable and only pure logic can be reliable
a posteriori are better
aquinas rejected a priori because you cannot know the nature of god so cannot follow anselms argument
hume rejected a priori because you cannot think of a being that cannot not exist - you can always think of that being not existing - you would need to experience it first
people naturally work from experience first
it is likely that gods handiwork would be evident in the world around us in some way
Descartes ontological argument
Further support comes from Descartes who argues that by definition God must also exist
he defines God as a supremely perfect being
part of God's existence is that he will always be perfect, he is immutable and will not change
just like a triangle will always have 3 sides, God will always be perfect
he then went on to argue that part of perfection is existence
God is perfect and therefore lacks nothing and so existence must be a feature of God
Descartes went on to say that we can't actually imagine God not existing
just like we cannot imagine a mountain without a valley, we cannot imagine God not existing
therefore, further support comes from Descartes in proving the existence of God