What is Gaunilo’s argument against Anselm’s ontological argument?
- Gaunilo was Anselm’s contemporary.
- he believed Anselm was a greater fool for his argument. He illustrated it as the following:
- Imagine the greatest conceivable island.
- It is better for this island to exist in real life than in just the understanding of those who conceive it.
- Therefore, it exists, because it is the greatest possible concievable island.
What is the counterargument against this criticism proposed by Anselm?
- An Island does not have existence as one of its predicated. There are many different predicates of an island. However, existence is not part of it in the way that it is for God.
- Therefore, his theory fails.
What is the criticism made by the empiricists (Hume) against the ontological argument?
- Hume’s fork.
Something cannot be a synthetic truth which is a priori verified. Therefore, the arguments are inherently incorrect. - It must involve empirical evidence.
- “There is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or prove it by any means a priori.
- Proof = synthetic statements
- Claims = analytic statements.
What did Ayer add to the criticism of ontology through emirical means?
He highlighted that anything existing is not an a priori truth. Therefore, all ontological arguments will be inherently false.
What is Ayer’s quote concerninig the deduction of the existence of a God?
“We cannot deduce the existence of a god from an a priori proposition,”
What is a counterargument against Hume and Ayer’s criticism of the ontological argument?
Hume:
1) Some believe that you can establish a synthetic truth with a priori justification. (Descartes)
2) Can’t God be the exception to the rule of ‘Everything we can concieve of existing, we can also not concieve of existing,’
Ayer:
His V.P. sucks! It fails itself.
What is Kant’s objection to the ontological argument?
- the assumption that existence is a predicate to God is wrong.
- Imagine 100 coins which are not real
- Imagine 100 coins which are real.
- Our conception of the coins doesn’t change.
- Predicates should add to our conception of something.
- ‘Existence’ doesn’t’.
What does Russell say to add to Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument?
- ‘Existence’ refers to something that corresponds to something in the real world.
- Therefore, this needs empirical verification.
How does Norman Malcom reply to Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument?
- ‘Existence’ isn’t a property
- ‘Necessary existence’ is a property
- Kant can’t overcome the statement that existence is a predicate.
Kant replies and says Malcom is stating:
‘If God exists, then he is necesssary,’
Malcome further replies:
‘God is necessary,’ is a fair statement, and doesn’t reply on empirical evidence.
