What is the ontological argument based on?
Once you have defined God, no doubt remains about his existence - God exists by definition.
What does ‘ontos’ mean?
Being, existence
Is the ontological argument a priori or a posteriori?
A priori - analyses propositions about God to understand what God means without empirical evidence.
List Gods characteristics. Because God has all these attributes, he is…
Omniscient
Omnipotent
Omnibenevolent
Eternal
Everlasting
Immanent
Transcendent
Creator
Incorporeal
= God is perfect!!
Explain Anselm’s first proof
P1 God is a being that which nothing greater can be conceived (TWNGCBC)
P2 Both believers and non-believers understand this definition
IC Therefore, God exists at least in intellectu (our minds)
P3 Things can exist in intellectu alone or in intellectu and in re (reality)
P4 It is greater to exist in both re and intellectu than just in intellectu
IC God would be greater if He existed both in re and intellectu
P5 If God did not exist in re then He would not be TWNGCBC
C Therefore, God must exist in re as well as in intellectu
Explain Gaunilo’s island as a criticism for Anselm’s first proof and Anselm’s answer.
P1 We can imagine an island which is the greatest conceivable island
P2 It is greater for the island to exist in re than merely in intellectu
C Therefore, the greatest conceivable island must exist in re
= reductio ad absurdum…you can’t just imagine an island into existence!
Anselm says God is not like an island, God is a necessary being and an island is not! (…Anselm’s second proof)
Explain Anselm’s second proof
P1 God is the greatest possible being
P2 It is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being
P3 If God was a contingent being, and we can imagine He could not exist, then a greater being could be imagined that cannot be conceived not to exist
P4 This being would be greater than God…illogical as God is the greatest possible being
C Therefore, God is a necessary being
What is a necessary being?
A being that possesses necessary existence
Explain Descartes argument
P1 God is a supremely perfect being
P2 A supremely perfect being contains all the perfections
P3 Existence is a supreme perfection
C Therefore, God, as a supremely perfect being, exists
How does Descartes use a triangle in his argument + keyword?
It is impossible to imagine God as not existing in the same way that it is impossible to imagine a triangle without angles adding up to 180 degrees…existence is a predicate of God.
How does Aquinas challenge Anselm’s version of the Ontological argument?
Aquinas agrees that if we knew God’s essence, we would also know that He existed. But, we do not know God’s essence so the argument fails.
We cannot start from an agreed definition of God as we have no way of testing if that definition is correct.
Any discussion of God’s existence must be based on synthetic propositions or statements and not on analytic propositions such as Anselm used.
How do we defend Anselm against Aquinas?
We could argue that it isn’t necessary to know God’s essence completely in order for Anselm’s answer to work.
Also, we have an adequate idea of an all powerful/perfect being without having to work out every single attribute that such a being would have.
What does Aquinas say is wrong about Descartes’ ontological argument?
The idea of God is not innate.
We do not know about God’s essence and human reason cannot tell us about God’s essence.
How does Hume first criticise the Ontological argument?
He says it is not possible to take a concept, use logic to reach a conclusion (a priori) and then apply that conclusion in the external universe (a posteriori). As humans, we base our knowledge on what we can observe and what we can rationally prove. God is outside of our understanding.
How do we defend the Ontological argument against Hume’s first criticism?
We do have ideas of things that are generated through logic and rational thinking rather than through observation: concepts such as beauty, love, justice are ideas not tangibly observable. We see acts that we identify as just or things we identify as beautiful, but we do not see and observe justice and beauty themselves.
What is Hume’s challenge based on existence as a predicate/his second criticism of the Ontological argument?
Hume argues we cannot treat existence as a predicate that something can have or not have; adding existence to a thing does not change its definition.
The proposition that ‘God exists’ is not analytic because ‘God’ does not contain the idea of existence. If I deny that ‘God exists’ there is no contradiction; I can still have a clear idea of God as omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent and not existing. Therefore, the statement ‘ God exists’ is synthetic rather than analytic.
How does Kant first criticise the Ontological argument?
Even if existence is a necessary property of God, this does not mean He exists.
While we might accept the proposition that ‘God necessarily exists’ and that the proposition is true by definition, it does not follow that God exists in reality.
You can have propositions that are true by definition, but this does not mean they are reality. e.g. Unicorns are horses with horns = a proposition true by definition…but it does not follow that unicorns exist.
We accept that some propositions are true by definition and can still deny the existence of their subject.
How does Kant secondly criticise the Ontological argument?
Existence is not a property of God because it is not a property of anything.
Saying X exists tells us nothing about X, whereas X is tall or wide or green or old gives us information about X. X does not tell us what the object is really like; it merely states it’s concept as an actuality.
Predicates describe the subject and enrich our idea of the concept, but existence doesn’t do this. ‘Exists’ does not add to our concept of a subject, it cannot be a real predicate; existence is not a property that anything can either have or not have. If this is the case, the argument fails.
What does Russell contribute to the criticism of the Ontological Argument?
P1 Donkey exist.
P2 Eeyore is a donkey.
C Therefore, Eeyore exists.
Russell is arguing that Anselm uses the word ‘exists’ incorrectly and that if existence was a predicate the above argument could be constructed.
This is a syllogism, a deductive argument that reasons from the general to the specific. The issues is that the conclusion is incorrect: Eeyore does not exist and using existence as a predicate does not mean that the subject exists.
Existence is therefore a false predicate - it appears to describe something but actually doesn’t. Instead it’s an existential quantifier meaning to say ‘God exists’ is to say that there is, in the world, something that corresponds to our concept of God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc). But, whilst we can find empirical evidence for other existing things, it is much more difficult to find convincing empirical evidence for God, if even possible.
