Arguments based on reason

• A priori arguments


  Arguments which draw conclusions through the use of reason
• Contingent being


  a being whose existence depends on something outside itself, such that neither its existence nor its nonexistence is logically necessary
• Necessary existence


  Existence which does not depend on anything else
• Predicate

  A term which describes a distinctive characteristic of something
• Logical fallacy


  An error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid
• Epistemic distance (Hick)


  The gap in knowledge between God and humanity; human inability to know God fully
• Anselm's definition of God

  • 'That than which nothing greater can be concieved'
  • this definition is universal, not impacted by whether we believe in God or not
  • Any god thing would be better if it existed in our minds and reality
  • God is understood to be the highest sum of all perfections; where absolutely nothing could surpass God in any way
  • We can work out that God must exist simply by considering the definition of 'God
• Anselm's 2nd Ontological Argument

  - God is that which nothing greater can be thought

  - Because God is unsurpassable in every way, God must have necessary existence

  - therefore, God exists necessarily as a necessary being cannot fail to exist (only contingent beings can fail to exist)

  - Anselm argues that necessary existence is part of the whole definition of God
• Analytic proposition

  - one which is true by definition

  - it can be arrived at by definition e.g 'bachelors are unmarried men', we can accept by the definition of a bachelor that he is unmarried and male

  - Anselm argued that the statement 'God exists' is analytic, existence is part of the definition of God
• Synthetic proposition

  - a proposition that is not true by definition, we need experience to understand its validity

  - e.g the sun will rise tomorrow, this is not true by the definition of the sun, but, to know it to be true, we need to experience the sun rising tomorrow
• Psalm 53:1

  The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.
• Anselm's reference to Psalm 53:1

  - he argued that by accepting the definition of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be concieved', one must also accept God's existence

  - 'Why then did the fool say in his heart 'God is not' since it is so obvious to the rational mind that you exist supremely above all things
• Gaunilo's criticisms of Anselm

  - contemporary of Anselm

  - argued there were logical fallacies in Anselm's 1st Ontological argument that would be obvious if we replace God with the idea of an island

  - we could imagine 'the most excellent island' and then go on, using Anselm's logic, to say that such an island to exist in our mind is inferior to the same island existing in reality

  - if our island is truly excellent, it cannot only exist in a concept, it must exist in reality

  - however, there is clearly no such island in reality - we cannot bring something into existence just by defining it as a superlative
• Anselm's response to Gaunilo

  • 2nd Ontological argument
  • Gaunilo was right in the case of an island, but the same objections could not be applied to God
  • the island has a contingent existence, God's existence is necessary
  • the argument only works when applied to God, because of God's uniqueness and his unique existence
  • 'if a mind could conceive of a greater being than (God) the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd.'
• Aquinas' criticisms of Anselm: God's existence is not self-evident

  • Argued that God's existence cannot be regarded as self-evident
  • a statement e.g 'truth does not exist' is obviously non-sensical as no one can accept the truth of 'truth does not exist' unless truth actually does exist after all
  • impossible to have a mental contradiction of the non-existence of truth as it is a contradiction in terms
  • however, it is not impossible to have a mental concept of the non-existence of God, Anselm's fool who says in his heart 'there is no God'
  • if we can imagine a state of godlessness, then it cannot be a contradiction in terms, despite Anselm's claim
• Aquinas' criticisms of Anselm: Anselm's definition of God

  - Argued that not all would accept the definition of God as 'that than which nothing greater can be thought'

  - although we can approach an understanding and awareness of God, God will always remain unknowable to the finite human mind

  - Anselm starts his argument from a position that 'we all know what God means', but this may not be true, human minds are limited, we cannot fully comprehend the nature of God until after death

  - even is this concept of God was universally shared, it only goes as far to say this name 'God signifies something that than which nothing greater can be thought, but does not therefore follow that what the name signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally
• Descartes' version of the ontological argument

  - disagreed with Aquinas' view that we do not all share the same understanding of God

  - argued that there are some concepts which are innate and universally shared by all humanity e.g equality, cause, shape, number etc.

  - in the same way, the concept of what God is is also innate

  - we understand God to be the supremely perfect being, with every perfection (omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc. as his attributes

  - us analogy of a triangle, three angles adding up to 180 degrees is part of the essence of a triangle, in the same way existence is part of the essence of God

  - Because God has all the perfections and existence is a perfection, God exists

  - as God is perfect, he must have always existed and must go on to exist for all eternity
• Kant's critique of the Descartes' ontological argument: existence is not a predicate

  - existence cannot be an attribute of something, it is not a property or quality that adds to the concept of a thing

  - predicates tell us what an object is like e.g 'A dog barks' 'barks' is the predicate as it tells us about the dog, that it is barking

  - Saying something "exists" does not add to the concept of that thing - it only tells us whether or not it has ben 'actualised' in reality

  - For example, imagining a triangle with three sides vs. imagining it exists doesn't change the concept of a triangle

  - Likewise, adding "existence" to the concept of God doesn't actually prove God's existence
• Kant quote


  "Existence is not a real predicate... it is absolutely given or existing. The mere concept contains no more than the possible." - Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
• Kant's analogy of a hundred thalers

  - A hundred real thalers and a hundred imaginary thalers are conceptually the same

  - Existence doesn't increase the value or content of the concept - just whether it exists in the real world, whether it is actual

  - This shows that you cannot define something into existence by claiming it must exist by nature of its concept
• Weakness of Kant's critique

  - misunderstands what Anselm/ Descartes meant by 'existence'

  - treats existence as a property of individual things e.g Thalers, and argues that adding 'existence' doesnt change their concept

  - however, God's existence is different, God exists necessarily whereas the things Kant was referring to exist contingently

  - Necessary existence is a predicate, but is only a predicate to God
• Response from Kant


  - makes the ontological argument circular

  - The argument assumes what it sets out to prove - it begins with a definition of God as a being that must exist, and then concludes that God exists

  - it builds existence into the definition, so the conclusion is contained in the premise

  HOWEVER,

  - Supporters of Anselm argue it's not circular - it's analytic, like mathematical truths. E.g., "A bachelor is an unmarried man" is necessarily true once you understand the terms

  - Similarly, if God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," then not existing would make God lesser, which is logically incoherent

  - Plantinga's modal version reframes this
• Plantinga's ontological argument 'God, Freedom, and Evil'

  - It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

  - If it is possible, then it exists in some possible world.

  - If it exists in some possible world, and it is maximally great, then it exists in every possible world (because greatness includes necessary existence).

  - If it exists in every possible world, then it exists in our world.

  - Therefore, a maximally great being (God) exists.
• Bertrand Russel's critique of the ontological argument'Why I Am Not A Christian'

  - existence is not a predicate

  - take the statement 'The present King of France is bald'

  - Grammatically, this sounds like a meaningful statement.

  - But there is no present King of France - so the sentence is actually meaningless or false

  - Russell used this to argue that just because you define God as necessarily existing doesn't mean such a being exists in reality - logical form doesn't guarantee ontological truth
• Norman Malcom's response to Kant

  - argues that existence in the contingent kind may not be a predicate, but that necessary existence, which only applies to God, is different

  - existence is usually not a characteristic that helps us distinguish between one thing and another so is not usually a predicate

  - necessary existence however, is a characteristic that draws a distinction between God and everything else, its sets God apart just like his other characteristics - omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience etc. are also predicates

  - existence therefore can be used as a predicate, but only for God
• Malcom's argument for God's existence

  - in order to be God, God must have necessary existence:

  - If God does not exist today, then he never can and never will - his existence must be impossible; because a being with the greatness of God is uncaused and has no beginning

  - If God does exist, then he must exist necessarily, rather than contingently, dependant on something else

  - God's existence is therefore impossible or necessary, there are no other options

  - God's existence is not impossible, it is not logically contradictory to have the concept of a God who exists - it is an idea that we can entertain without any logical absurdity

  - Therefore, given that God's existence is not impossible, it must be necessary, as that is the only other option - so God exists necessarily
• Weakness of Malcom's argument

  - relies on our acceptance from the start that God's existence is not the same as other kinds of existence

  - would not convince atheists, so reduces the argument to the point where it is saying no more than that God is true for those who believe in God

  - many theists would want to claim that God exists in reality, whether we believe in him or not
• logical fallacy

  reasoning with a structural flaw
• What is Anselm's key text?

  'The Proslogion'
• Anselm's argument: pros

  • viable conclusion - If God exists, it is logical to assume that God is the greatest conceivable thing
  • a priori = trustworthy, senses deceive
  • Justifies a belief in God and makes Him true by definition
• Anselm: cons

  • unrealistic - we have no physical or external knowledge of God. Rise of secularism (through evolution, for instance) has removed the need for Him
  • Gaunillo's island analogy - arguably better for God to exist in the mind alone as we can imagine anything whatsoever
  • A priori - a posteriori produces empirical evidence so it can be proved (e.g Paley's watch analogy)
• Gaunillo: pros

  • B. Russel - existence is only meaningful if it refers to an 'instance' of something (empirically verifiable)
  • Anselm is defining things into existence, defining something as "great" doesn't mean it exists
  • Plato's 'Form of the Good' represents an element of God that is the greatest thing, indicating that God does exist even without Anselm's definiton
• Gaunilo key text

  'On Behalf of the Fool'
• Gaunilo: cons

  • Plantinga - An island has no intrinsic maxim as it can be improved. God has an intrinsic maxim as he's the greatest conceivable thing
  • Anselm's argument is a priori, and if you agree in the greatness of God then the rest of the premises follow
  • Gaunilo and Russell imply the need for empirical evidence, but a posteriori evidence is deceiving
• Anselm *Proslogion 2*

  • a priori argument to prove existence of God
  • God is "that than which nothing greater can be concieved"
  • Utilised Psalm 14:1 "the fool says in his heart there is no God"
  • Illustration of a painting - the greatest painting is better in existence than in the artist's head
  • We have a universal understanding of God, even if we don't think he exists
  • similar to Calvin's sensus divinitatus
• Pros of anselm's argument *Proslogian 2*


  • Most people would agree with Anselm's definition. - A.Kenny: "all logically possible powers that it is logically possible for a God to have"
  • a priori so avoids subjectivity of senses - Like Plato's cave analogy, senses can't be trusted
  • Logical argument and avoids anthropomorphising God by emphasising his omnipotence - Augustine *City Of God* God can do "what he wills"
• Cons of Anselm's argument

  • You can't define something you have no knowledge of - Descartes questions the certainty of God's existence with his 3 waves of doubt - "whoever employs his ingenuity in deceiving me"
  • A priori arguments use invalid logic. A posteriori better, e.g Paley's design argument and Tennant's Aesthetics principle
  • Some things are better in the mind, Anselm makes God seem fantastical - Freud would argue that this is a "neurosis" as Anselm is forcing God into existence for security
• Gaunillo *on behalf of the fool* - ANSELM OPPONENT


  • disagreed with Anselm's logic and reasoning
  • Gaunillo illustrated that an island in his mind isn't an island in reality
  • "I should think he was joking or i should find it hard to judge who was the bigger fool"
  • Freud would agree, he'd say that Anselm is engaging in "wish-fulfilment"
• Anselm's *Proslogian 3* - response to Gaunillo


  • Argued that an island is contingent, but God is a necessary being
  • 'For if a mind could conceive of a being better than thee, the creature would rise above the Creator; and this is most absurd.'