Arguments based on reason

View mindmap
  • Arguments based on reason
    • Anselm's Ontological Argument
      • Anselm argues the athiest knows what they are rejecting- understand God to say he does not exist.
      • Painter imagines painting in mind. Painting it into existence. Understanding into reality.
      • Anselm's two different types of existence: existence in the mind and reality.
      • Definition of God that there's nothing greater. Greatest possible being.
      • God must exist in the mind. Definition of God: greatest being. Greatest to exist in mind and reality.
      • "the fool say in his heart, there is no God" Aquinas.
      • "[God] you alone, can be conceived not to exist" Anselm.
    • Guanilo versus Anselm
      • The perfect island
        • Guanilo with his perfect island that has the most riches etc.
        • Guanilo- imagine the island, exist in your mind.
        • You are told that there's no doubt that the island exists as it logically must be, excellent to exist in reality.
        • Guanilo suggests internal logic, Anselm used was equally false.
      • Guanilo's other people.
        • Unreal things in our mind.
        • We may believe something unreal someone tells us, gossip isn't true.
        • Do not all have the same. understanding of God.
        • Never understand something from the description alone: different people have different pictures in their minds when some words are spoken.
        • We cannot define something into existence. Aware of our existence but think of non-existence.
      • Anselm's reply
        • Anselm replies to Gaunilo through reaffirming his definition of God as he cannot not exist.
        • A being that nothing greater can be thought of, placed in your mind= God.
        • Contradictionof saying God is the greatest but may not exist. Anselm says God isn't special.
        • Anselm says Guanilo misplaces logic. God is necessary and the island is contingent.
        • Anselm other possible matters are things attributed e.g. thinking about good.
        • "fleece, the being than which a greater is inconceivable must be whatever should be attributed to the divine essence" Anselm's reply to Gaunilo.
    • Kant's criticisms
      • Kant criticises the ontological argument. It is useful to understand the way sentences are made.
      • Objection One:
        • True that existence is part of what its meant for a perfect God.
        • Triangle is part of what it means to be a triangle.
        • Judgement helps us understand and not from the existence of a triangle.
        • Jusgment isn't the same as the necessity of something. Triangles three sides if the triangle exists first.
        • Kant- ontological argument bad logical as they suggest it justify God's perfection.
        • Can make an object and define it in various ways but doesn't make the object reality.
        • For Kant, if God exists then he necessarily exists.
      • Objection Two:
        • Nature of existence as a predicate.
        • Kant doesn't believe existence is a proper audience- determining predicate.
        • Kant 'this book is a revision guide; tells about the book, 'book exists' doesn't tell me about the cause.
        • Kant says thinkers who use the ontological argument are treating existence in the wrong way.
    • Assessing the ontological argument
      • Can existence be treated as a predicate?
        • Kant: existence isn't a determining predicate, doesn't give us the same information.
        • Gaunilo: suspicious of Anselm and define things into existence- lost island has predicate, but not existence.
        • Kant: predicate only a predicate as it has a subject, so the subject is rejected there would be no case to answer.
      • Are there logical fallacies in this argument?
        • God can be defined into existence.
        • Anselm doesn't define greatness and different people define it in different ways.
        • Is it fair to say that everyone has a common understanding of God?
      • Does the ontological argument justify beliefs?
        • Ontological argument doesn't say anything about the nature of God. No full picture of God.
        • Anselm's writing was to praise God and glorify him.
        • Anselm: meditation on God's existence for a believe than proof to non-believer. Unlikely to convince atheist of God's existence.
        • Assumption that a believer should know everything about God. Religious people comfy with glimpse of God.
    • Compare Priori and Posteriori arguments
      • Posteriori arguments: physical evidence in world to come to conclusions.
      • Possible to prove God's existence priori than lacking doubt- logical poofs like maths.
      • Posteriori arguments: issues of interpretation.
      • Priori arguments better:
        • Experience deceives us e.g. unwell pr psychological-influences.
        • Priori argument: defined terms  so logic follows easily.
        • Modern forms of ontological arguments convincing.
        • Experience+Observationsof world= unreliable and pure logic reliable.
      • A posteriori arguments are better:
        • Aquinas x priori ontological argument as you don't know the nature of God, so can't follow (Anselm's argument).
        • Hume rejects ontological argument, cannot think of a being not not existing.
        • People work naturally from experience.
        • Likely Gods, work is evident in the world around us.
    • Going further: Descartes' argument
      • Descartes shielded way from using sensory as rational thought was more reliable.
      • Triangle determined by three angles that add up to 180 degrees.
      • God is the 'supremely perfect being' must exist, existence key to God having angles adding up two angles= triangle.
      • Like a mountain and valley. God and existencce coincide.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Religious Studies resources:

See all Religious Studies resources »See all Philosophy resources »