Ontological argument

• A priori = An argument that is based on logical deduction and is prior to sense experience
• Necessary truth = A proposition that could not possibly be false
• Necessary thing = Something that could not possibly have failed to exist
• Contingent thing = Something which does not exist necessarily and so could have failed to exist
• Analytic statement = A statement which is true by definition e.g. a triangle has three sides
• Synthetic statement = A statement or proposition whose truth or falsity are determined by sense experience
• Predicate = A quality/property of an object or subject. Predicate gives us information about a subject
• Ontological = Greek work for 'being' - in the Ontological argument this refers to the being/nature of God
• Reductio ad Absurdum = Reduce to absurdity
• Key scholars

  • Anselm of Canterbury
  • Gaunilo
  • Kant
  • Descartes
  • Karl Bath
• Who was Anselm of Canterbury?


  11th centaury monk, theologian and Archbishop

  
• What was Anselm's motto?


  "I believe in order to understand"

  -belief precedes understanding
• Was the ontological argument a deductive argument?


  Yes, there is no sense experience. Deductive arguments intend to guarantee truth of conclusion, if the premise is true the conclusion must be true.
• What are the three claims of the ontological argument?

  1. The proposition 'God exists' is a priori, it can be known to be true without reference to sense experience.
  2. In the proposition 'God exists' the subject 'God' contains the predicate 'exists', so God must exist
  3. Gods existence is necessary truth, not a contingent one
• What was Anselm's ontological argument a response to?


  Psalm 14:1- " The fool says in his heart 'there is no God' "
• What is Anselm's definition of God?


  "A being than which nothing greater can be conceived"
• Anselm's ontological argument

  P1 - God is the greatest conceivable being

  P2 - It is greater to exist in reality and the mind then only in mind

  P3- Difference between mind and reality

  P4- For example a painter has an idea of what to paint in his mind, that painting is greater if it exists in reality as well

  P5- If God only existed in the mind, I could think of something greater namely a God who existed in reality

  C1- Therefore as the greatest conceivable being God must exist
• How does Gaunilo criticize the ontological argument?

  • He constructs a reductio ad absurdum argument to show flaws
  • He uses a parody of the ontological argument , applies it to a 'lost island'
• Gaunilo's 'lost island' parody

  P1- It is possible to conceive the most perfect island

  P2- Greater o exist in reality than in the mind

  C1- Therefore the most perfect island must exist in reality

  -proves structure of argument is flawed, just because you can imagine something doesn't prove it exists
• What is Gaunilo's response to the ontological argument?

  • he suggests Anselm's argument can be used to prove the existence of an endless number of perfect objects
  • Gaunilo says the real fool is anybody who argued something into existence in this way
  • We can show a posteriori this argument doesn't exist so Anselm's a priori argument doesn't work
• How did Anselm respond to Gaunilo?

  • 'God cannot be conceived not to exist - God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived - That which can be conceived not to exist is not God'
  • Islands are contingent however God is necessary
  • God is special case, so you cant use the ontological argument for anything but God
  • Necessary existence is only a predicate of God nothing else
• How did Descartes support the ontological argument?


  • 'existence' is predicate and must go with the subject 'God'
  • 'it is evident that existence can not be separated from the essence of God'
  • Compares to how a triangle by definition has 3 angles/sides and how a mountain always has a valley
  • So by definition God must exist - a supremely perfect being (God) cannot lack perfection(existence)
• What was Descartes definition of God?

  "supremely perfect being"

  -therefore he possesses all the perfect predicates omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience so he must posses existence
• Strengths of the ontological argument

  • it has certainty as a deductive argument - if the premise is true the conclusion must be true, so if this argument succeeds it is absolute proof for the existence of God >> more reliable than an inductive argument
  • argument doesn't rely on empiricism/observation
  • Anselm's argument is supported by Descartes - support from a high profile philosopher is s strength
• Criticisms of the ontological argument 1

  • Gaunilo - perfect island parody
  • Kant - existence is not a predicate >>> saying 'God exists' adds nothing to our understanding of his essence, real predicated give us knowledge about the subject(e.g. thalers/coins are round and metallic) existence cannot be used as a predicate to prove something exists>>> logic alone is insufficient, we need sense experience to prove something exists
• Criticisms of cosmological argument 2

  • Kant - only if there is a God can God exists necessarily >>> ontological argument fails as it omits the word 'if', should say 'if God exists he exists necessarily' >>> you can not define God into existence
  • Argument depends on accepting Anselm's definition >>> the argument is subjective and requires pre existing religious base, if the definition is rejected the whole argument is pointless
• How does the ontological argument offer proof for God?

  • Yes but only for certain people
  • if someone accepts Anselm's definition of God, this deductive argument offers certain proof
  • It is a priori and therefore does not rely on fallible sense experience
• How does the ontological argument NOT offer proof for God?

  • Kant: ontological argument merely show 'if' God exists then he exists necessarily
  • The argument is limited as only works if someone accepts Anselm's definition of God
• What did Karl Bath say about the ontological argument?

  • he says the argument was not intended as proof for God's existence but it was the result of religious experience that Anselm had
  • Anselm's argument is about faith, not logic>>> argument is therefore true for those with faith, because it is an expression if their faith