The Ontological Argument

    Cards (28)

    • Intro to Anselm
      • French monk
      • Became archbishop of canterbury
      • led a life of contemplation and prayer
      • Benedictine Monk
      • Not a philosopher
    • Intro - ontological Argument
      • Found in proslogium, prayer book addressed to God
      • Never intended to create the ontological argument
    • Psalm 14:1
      The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
    • Proslogium 2
      1. God is "than which nothing greater can be conceived"- necessary truth
      2. Psalm 14:1. There's a difference between having a concept in the mind and knowing it exists.
      3. If God's only in the mind, a greater being could be conceived, one that exists in reality.
      4. So God cannot only exist in the mind
    • Most important points
      1 and 5
    • Why is Anselm biased?
      These are his private prayers-not meant to be critiqued and debated
    • "God exists" statement
      • once God has been defined correctly, there's no doubt he exists
      • subject and predicate
      • a priori/deductive
    • Gaunilo's "on behalf of the fool"
      • called ontological argument reductio ad absurdum
      • 'Perfect Island' argument
    • Perfect Island
      • Everyone will imagine a perfect island to be different
      • Everyone's definition of God is different
      • Anselm didn't prove anything as he didn't prove God's existence in the first place
    • Proslogium 2 and 3 responsio
      1. The island would have to be "than which nothing greater can be conceived"
      2. The greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist
      3. Conclusion: God and God alone is a necessary truth
    • Necessary truth
      a proposition that is true and could not have been false, something that could not have possibly failed to exist
    • Contingent truth
      A proposition that happens to be true but might have been false
    • Descartes
      • created own version of ontological argument
      • defined God as "the supremely perfect being", must possess all perfect predicates
    • Kant
      criticised Descartes: 2 criticisms
    • Kant's criticisms
      • Existence is not a predicate
      • Something cannot be defined into existence
    • Existence is not a predicate
      • adds nothing to subject
      • predicate must add extra knowledge
      • Thaler example
      • No difference between concept of God and concept that God exists
    • Thaler example
      • Imagine 100 Thaler
      • Each has king's head, is round and made of metal
      • Therefore, Thaler's exist because we can describe them
      • not true
    • Something cannot be defined into existence
      1. Anselm's argument is true by definition
      2. Bachelor can be defined=it exists Unicorn can be defined= it exists
      3. Unicorns may be found to be true- can only be proven by sense experience
      4. People can only know God by experiencing God
      5. Just because we can define God and Unicorns, doesn't mean either is true
    • Ontological argument's failure
      • Emits the word "if"
      • IF unicorns exist, they'll be horses with horns
      • IF God exists, God will exist necessarily
    • The value of Anselm's argument for religious faith
      • Doesn't require observation (strength)
      • Either fails or succeeds by logic (strength)
      • Existence is not a predicate (weakness)
    • Is the Ontological argument enough to say that God exists?
      • Kant's objection shows it isnt a proof
      • Karl Barth: "it is a faith based acceptance that God exists"
    • Proslogium 4 and Faith
      "A thing may be conceived in 2 ways: when the word signifying it is conceived and when the thing itself is understood"
    • Anselm's example
      • "fire is water" every word can be understood but anyone who understands both fire and water knows it isnt true
      • "There is no God" every word can be understood, but a religious person understands it can't be true because they know and understand God
    • Karl Barth
      argues Anselm's argument is about understanding faith
    • Against Barth
      • At the start of his proslogium, Anselm says he's looking for proof
      • not religious experience
      • demonstrates the truth of his argument
      • not an argument of faith but logic
      • argument has value even if a person has faith
      • fideists disagree with any argument containing logic
      • Anselm seeks logical proof
    • “it is easier to feel convinced that [the Ontological Argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.” – Bertrand Russell
    • The ontological argument is a priori, meaning it cannot be disproven by new scientific understanding or evidence
    • “Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought” – Aquinas.