Ontological Argument

TYPE OF ARGUMENT

Ontological- Study of Being

Apriori- Using logic, knowlegde and definitions not evidence  to reach a conclusion

Analytical-The statement is true by defnition of words

Deduction- Reasoning by logical stages to reach a conclusion

Indictive- Seeks to pursuade not prove

ANSELM FIRST FORM

• God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'
• If God existed only in the mind (inintelectu) then a greater being could be imagined to exist in reality (in re)
• This being would then be greater than God. However this would go aganst our definition of God
• Therefore God cannot exist only in the mind as existing in reality and the mind is better than existing only in the mns  'God cannot exist in the understanding alone'
• So as God is 'than than which nothing greater can be conceived' 'God must exist both in the understanding  and reality'

ANALOGY

When a painting is in the painters mind they lack the understanding of what it means for the painting to be in reality Therefore their understandinf is only complete and perfect when the painting exits in the mind and reality

ANSELMS SECOND FORM

• The defnition of God is 'than than which nothing greater can be conceived'
• We cannot conceive anything greater than God
• God could be a necessary being or a contingent being
• It is greater to be a necessary being rather than a contingent one
• If the definition of Gos is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' then God must exist as a necessary being
• Therefore God must exist in reality

DESCARTES

Argument is in Meditations

• Defines God as a' supremely perfect being'
• A supremely perfect being has every prefection and every predicate
• Existence is prefection
• A supreme being must have the prefection of existing
• It is impossible to think of God as not existing
• God Exists 
•                                                                                                                                           

NORMAN MALCOLM

God cannot come into existence by cause or chance as to do so would indicate a limited being. AS he cannot come into ecistence, if he does not already exst. His existence would be impossible . If he does exits he cannot cease to exist for the same reasons and so if he states his existence is necessary.

The statement 'God necessarily exists' is either impossible , possible or necessary

• POSSIBLE-
• If God does not already exist he cannot come into existance God would have to have a cause and be contingent
• If he does exist he cannot go out of existence for the same reason
• Conclusion - Gods existence could only be impossibe or necessary he has shown it is not impossible

IMPOSSIBLE

• Gods existence is not logically absurd or contridictory thersfore God must necessarily exist  so the statement 'God necessarlily exists is true'

GAUNILO -Gaunilo had 3 critisisms of Anselms argument

• on GOSSIP- the fool could have all kinds of made up things in his head. Gossip for instance is unreliable so how should he be able to disurn what is true and what isn't
• You cannot define things into existence
• The perfect island - there is somethings wrong with the logic of these arguments. Each ontological argu,ent uses the same logic so they must all be unsound

PERFECT ISLAND

• Gaunilo does not accept Anselms argument and says it leads to absurd conclusions- imagine the most perfect island
• The island can exist in the mind or mind and reality
• It is greater for it to exist in the mind and reality not just mind
• If it is the greatest island it must exist in reality- not just the mind
• Therefore the island exists. Gaunilo says that things cannot exist just because we have thought of them,

KANT

• Does not prove Gods existence through words alone as its an analytical statement so cant tell if its true or false

Analytical- true or false just by words contained in the statemenr e.g bachelors are unmarried men Predicate is containe within the subject                                                                                               Synthetic -  need to test it out predicate is not containe in the subject                                              So God exists must be a synthetic statement as it needs to be verified

• Existence does not add any properties to Gods existence. A predicate should tell us more about a property or quality

e,g A triangle has 3 sides states the predicate but saying a triangle has 3 sides and it exists does not say anthing more about the nature of a triangle. In order to ascribe a predicate we must assume its existence before giving it properties. A predicate has to tell us more but 'existence' does not so 'God has necessary existence' is not a predicte because it needs to be verified

AQUINAS

• There is no certancity that the human mind has the correct concepts of God
• He is beyond our human understanding
• Our idead cannot prove Gods existence
• Existence of God is not self evident
• Even if we do have an idea it could be confused
• Anselm treats the definition of God as an analytical propersition when it is synthetic
• Apriori argument to pove the existence of God fails because we cannot define God
• We cannot define God we can only know him through his work

HUME -Hume had 2 objections

• Cannot take an idea in your mind - apply logic and reach a conclusion based on the external observable universe

Based our lives on what we can observe rather than what we can rationally prove  so therefore we cannot prove anything apriori

• Existence cannot be treates as a predicate

The description of something can contain every possible detail. To determine if something exists we must go beyond discription. A thing cannot be defined into existence- assumed perfection cannot be proof of existence

PETET VARDY

What does it mean to say that God exists?

• How do we see God?- is God like an object or a concept e.g like a bear or a triangle?
• If God is a being/object then the argument will seem to fail
• If God is a concept then this argument will have value
• Just like we have an idea of the equator e.g these ideas are useful but they are not objects

STRENGTHS

• The argument succeds if we accept the initial definition of anselm that 'God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
• The argument does not require any evidence as we can follow the reasoning through to see that God must exist
• It is impossible to think of God lacking any perfections so God must exist as to possess all perfections and not to exist would be meaningless
• Malcome says that because of the definition of God - omnis He cannot be a contingent being. This means that the existence of God is either impossible or necessart . The existence od God is not impossible so it must be necessary
• The argument succeeds if it is considered as an expression of what beleivers already hold as true

WEAKNESSES

• Kant- the word existence does not work in the same way that predicates do, it does not tell us anything anout God. We must establish the existence of a thing before we cannot say what it is like- cannot define things into existence
• Many people do not accept the definition of God and if they dont then the argument fails
• Aquinas- existence of God must be demonstrated but the ontoloical argument does not do this.
• Russell- Anselm is using the word existence incorrectly
• 'God exists' is a symthetic statement not an analytical statement
• Argument will probably not convince an athiest
• Only proves the 'God of philosphers' which is an abstract all powerful God not a 'God of faith' who loves and cares for us
• Hume- no statement about existence can be analytically true as it is possible to deny all statements about existence without contradiction
• Argument cannot be verified