Ontological argumet

• Intro and key words

  An a priori, deductive, analytic attempt to prove God has to exist by definition put forward by Anselm.
• Anselm, first form

  - God is the GCB and when thought of, exists in the mind.

  -Its better to also exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.

  -This means that a god that exists in reality as well as the mind would be greater than the god which exists only in the mind

  -Therefore, to be the GCB, God has to exist

  -God is the GCB so, by definition, God exists.
• Gaunilo, objections

  
  

  • Writes using reductio ad absurdum
  • Consider the bpi
  • it would be better if it existed in reality, rather than just in the mind
  • so to be the Bpi it must exist in the mind and in reality
  • Therefore, the bpi actually exists
  • But it doesn't! you can't 'prove' the existence of something just by defining it. therefore anselm's argument doesnt work
• Anselm, second form

  
  

  • God is the GCB, nothing greater can be thought
  • god cant just exist contingently as it would be greater for him to have necessity, where he cannot be thought not to exist.
  • if God, by definition, is the GCB. then he must have necessary existence.
  • a logically necessary being is one who's non-existence is impossible, one that cannot fail to exist
  • therefore god necessarily has to exist
• Kant objections

  -Hume's fork, necessary is a priori and being only applies to the a posteriori empirical world. its illicit to combine them, so necessary being has no meaning or is an impossibility.
• Status as proof

  -the argument is deductive, so it it works its 100% decisive proof of God's existence.
• Value for religious faith

  -the argument is framed as faith seeking understanding so isnt likely to convert non-believers
• Aquinas' objection

  objects to the premise that god can be defined. human minds are finite, they can't comprehend an infinite God, let alone define him.
• Response to Aquinas

  The human mind can comprehend infinity, for example an indefinite sequence of numbers or a line that goes on forever
• kant objection

  
  

  • "existence is not a predicate" (characteristic/attribute/property). if you take existence away then you no longer have the thing so is to do with the subject, predicates describe 'exist' tells us nothing. a thing with no existence has no properties at all
  • therefore, anselm was wrong to claim it would be greater for the gcb to exist in reality as existing in reality isnt a property which can be added to something
• kant objection

  -distinguishes between analytic and synthetic- Anselm's claims about God are analytic, in the same way a triangle has three sides, god has to exist. But claims about God's actual existence are synthetic, so anselms argument doesn't prove his existence.

  leads into another of kant's objections, he suggests anselm is saying "if there was a god, he'd have to exist necessarily" rather than proves he actually exists.
• value for religious faith

  -it does benefit religious faith as it makes discussions of gods existence seem reasonable, going against the athiest idea that religious faith is conjecture.
• value for religious faith

  -could be argued to not be very valuable for religious faith however, as religion is more than agreeing with an argument it involves commitment to a way of life/frame of mind
• value for religious faith

  -HH Price, belief in vs belief that, ontological shows a belief that but can't provide the belief in necessary for true religious faith.
• status as proof

  -you can use the previous objections to argue either way, it depends on whether you think the ontological argument can withstand the objections levied against it.
• status as proof

  -Karl Barth describes it as a faith based acceptance of god rather than a proof, since it was framed as faith seeking understanding
• weaknesses

  
  

  • any attempt to define god could be limiting him, god is transcendent and unknowable by nature
• weaknesses

  • kants objections stand, many philosophers accept that he ate
• weaknesses

  • really confusing, can sound like a trick upon first hearing it
• strengths

  • karl barth claims the argument is an expression of faith, faith seeking understanding rather than an attempt to prove gods existence.
  • to those with faith the argument is true since its the result of a religious experience where god revealed his true nature as gcb to anselm.
• strengths

  • an entry point for discussion as it provides a definition of god benefiting believers and atheists as it gives them something to agree with or reject better.
• strengths

  • could be argued kant fails w/ steven davis' the real/existing money has the property of being able to buy things but imaginary money doesn't so existing can be a predicate
• strengths

  • deductive, if it works its proof of the existence of god, which puts it above other arguments like design and cosmological as it doesn't depend on observation which isn't always reliable
• objection to gaunilo

  • while the best possible island argument can work as an objection to the first form, it doesn't work against the second form
• GE Moore and Russel

  • both offer argument corroborating existence is not a predicate
  • More uses "some tame tigers do not growl" "some tame tigers do not exist" to show that only the first statement is meaningful because the only predicate is that they do not growl, the second doesn't tell us anything about the tigers
  • Russell offers "cows are brown" "cows are brown and they exist" here both statements tell us cows are brown but nothing is added to our understanding of the cows by telling us they exist, because we already presume they exist
• weaknesses

  Aquinas said that we don't know gods definition and its impossible for fiinte human minds to comprehend the infinity of god.
• weaknesses

  gassendi argued either something exists or it doesnt, its only relevant to argue about something's properties and greatness if that thing exists