Quick Learn: Ontological Argument

Question 1

First Form on Anselm’s Argument

Answer 1

Anselm defined God as ‘a being that which nothing greater can be conceived’

If God is the greatest in every way, he must be something more than a mere idea

For God to be the greatest, he must exist in reality

Analogy: have £1000 is superior to the idea

Question 2

Second Form of Anselm’s Argument

Answer 2

Anselm developed the argument that it was impossible to conceive of God as not existing

Premise 1: God is the greatest possible being
2: it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being

Question 3

Building on the Argument

Answer 3

Definition of God: Anselm assumes ‘god’ is shortharnd for ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’

Existence: Anselm assumes that existence is, in itself, a perfection. ( re > intellectu )

Anselm’s Analogy: when a painter is considering his next work, it is already in his mind (intellectu). However, it can only be said to exist once he paints it (re). This is superior

Necessary Existence: God’s necessary existence is ‘de dicto necessary’ - by definition

Question 4

Objections to Anselm: Gaunillo

Answer 4

I can conceive of an island in which no greater island can be thought
Such an island must possess all perfections…

Anselm:

• It is not the same as God (necessary) as the island is contingent.
• Argument only works when applied to God because of the uniqueness of God
• contingency of an island means “the perfect island” is subjective

Question 5

Objections: Aquinas

Answer 5

1. God’s existence is self evident? No
   - Statement ‘Truth does not exist’ is inconceivable and is therefore a nonsensical statement
   - It is not impossible to imagine the non-existence of God. (People have)
2. Aquinas questioned whether everyone could accept his definition. God will always remain unknowable to the finite mind.
3. Transitional Error
   Aquinas doubted this concept could indicate such a being existed. Anselm guilty of making a ‘transitional error’, (moving from definition to existence)

• Necessary to provide evidence for the existence of God (Kant: agrees as empirical data is only reliable way of knowing anything)

Question 6

Descartes

Answer 6

Innate Ideas: We are born with concepts imprinted on our minds which are shared by humanity.

• We understand equality, shape and number from birth.
• We also understand God as a ‘supremely perfect being’ with all perfections.

Third Meditation:
P1: I Exist
P2: in my mind, I have the concept of a perfect being
P3: As an imperfect being, I could not have conjured up the concept of a perfect being
P4: Concept of a perfect being must therefore have originated from the perfect being itself
P5: Perfect being must exist

Triangle: Existence is a predicate of Godjust as 3 angles 180 degrees are predicates of a triangle.

Question 7

Kant

Answer 7

1. Existence is not a predicate
   - Predicates describe what something is like (green, tall)
   Existence does not tell us anything about what it is
2. Actualisation:
   - Predicates of triangle had to be investigated to actualise.
   - Predicate of a unicorn is having a horn. Adding ‘exists’ does not make any difference to whether it is actualised
3. Counter:
   - God’s existence is different because he is necessary

Question 8

Support for Kant

Answer 8

1. Hume: Existence can only be contingent. All things could be said not to exist.
2. Moore:
   - Some tame tigers do not growl (meaningful: tells us beings that answer to this description ‘do not growl)
   - Some tame tigers no not exist (meaningless: we learn nothing about tame tigers, except that they don’t exist)
3. Russell
   - Russell took Kant’s observations further.
   - Existence cannot be a predicate, if it were, we could construct the following argument…
   - Men exist, Santa Claus is a man

Question 9

Modern Proponents

Answer 9

1. Malcolm: Accepted Kant was right to say existence is not a predicate but believed the ontological argument could still be successful…
   - God must have necessary existence
2. Plantinga: uses concept of ‘possible worlds’: considers what could exist in an infinite number of possible worlds.
   P1: We are able to imagine any number of alternative worlds in which things may be quite different
   P2: There must be any number of possible worlds, including our own.
   P3: If God’s existence is necessary, he must exist in them all and have all the characteristics of God in them all.