the ont arg

8/3/2019 the ont arg

1/22


2/22

The Ontological Argument

Versions from Anselm and Descartesattempting to PROVE that God MUST

exist (not merely arguing that it is

probable that he exists)


3/22

1. The idea of God is something than which nothing greater can

be thought.

2. The atheist says THERE IS NO GOD but he must

understand what it is that he is denying.

3. So, the idea of God (as something than which nothing greater

can be thought) exists in his understanding.

4. However it is greater to exist in the understanding and

reality than to just exist in the understanding alone. [key

premise]

5. So to be something than which nothing greater can be

thought, God must exist in reality as well as in the

understanding.

6. SoGOD MUST EXIST

1. Anselms Ontological Argument


4/22

Anselm (quoting from the Bible):

The Foolhas said in his heart, There is no God.


5/22

The Ontological Argument

I. An a prioriargumentThe argument starts with the concept of God, not facts about the world

(which could be disputed). Galen Strawson wrote that an a prioriargument is

one where "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have

to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the

physical world. You don't have to do any science.

II. If the argument works then it is certain.

a posteriori arguments, like the design arguments only ever make the

existence of God probable (e.g. best explanation). The ontological

argument is purely a logical deduction. So, if it is right, then the conclusion

is certain.

III. If the argument works it proves the classical theist conception of God

i.e.something than which nothing greater can be thought must surely be

omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, etc


6/22


7/22

ROUND 1

Gaunilo VS Anselm

Gaunilo employs a reductio ad absurdum

argument to reveal the basic flaw in Anselms

proof Anselms argument must be false because of

the absurdities that result if the argument is

accepted He uses the analogy of the perfect island to

show this


8/22

The Perfect Island

hot

uninhabited

warm waterfull of exotic fruit

coconuts-a-plenty


9/22

1.I have an idea of the greatest

conceivable island.

2.It is greater to exist in reality than just inthe mind.

3.Therefore the greatest conceivable

island must exist! [BUT THIS, OF

COURSE, IS ABSURD, says Gaunilo]

Gaunilos argument


10/22

Does Gaunilo show Anselms

argument as invalid?

(not according to Anselm...)


11/22


12/22

ROUND 2

Anselm VS Gaunilo

Anselm points out that there is a difference betweencontingent existence and necessary existence.

Contingent things, by definition, either exist or dontexist.

He says that Gaunilos mistake is that an island canalways be thought of as not existing.

The thing about God is that you cannot think of himNOT existing. He is the only thing that has necessaryexistence.

God is the only thing to which the ontologicalargument can apply because he is the only beingwhose non-existence is inconceivable.


13/22

2. Descartes Ontological Argument

The concept of God (as a supremely perfect being)

includes allperfections a perfection is a positive

quality to a maximal degree.

Existence is a perfection (it is more perfect to exist

in reality and the mind than just in the mind)

So, God must exist.


14/22

Existence is inseparable from God. It is not in my

power to conceive a God without existence.

It is just as much of a contradiction to think of

God (that is, a supremely perfect being) lacking

existence (that is, lacking a perfection), as it is to

think of a mountain without a valley(Descartes)

2. Descartes Ontological Argument


15/22


16/22

ROUND 1

Kant VS Descartes

Kant: existence is not a perfection, because it isnot a predicate at all.

To say x exists is not to describe x at all or explain

what x is. Existence is not part of the concept ofanything.

To say x exists is to say that some real objectcorresponds to the concept of x.

If Kant is right then Descartes ontologicalargument falls apart because we cannot treatexistence as one of the properties that God has.


17/22

Warm, breezyNot crowded

Inexpensive

It exists

What does that

add to the picture?


18/22


19/22

ROUND 2

Descartes VS Kant

Here we have to imagine what Descartes might say...

Perhaps necessary existence is a predicate, even if existence is not?

Existence does seem to be a predicate. For example:

Suppose an inquiring child who has always believed that Santa Clausexisted asks me if this is so. I tell the child that Santa Claus does notexist, and the child believes me. The objection of existence not being apredicate would seem to say that the child has not learned anythingnew about Santa Claus, but surely that is a bit peculiar. To say that the

child has not learned anything new about Santa Claus when the childlearns of Santas nonexistence seems dreadfully nonsensical.

(source: http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/ontological.html)
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/ontological.htmlhttp://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/ontological.html


20/22

Possible conclusions...

Kant was right.

Ontological arguments

fail because they

wrongly treat existenceas a predicate.

The case of God is

unique ordinarily one

would not argue that

existence is a

predicate, but with

God one can.

A prioriarguments

attempting to prove

that God exists merely

by analysing the

concept God fail. If we

want to establish

whether God exists or

not we have to look at

the world around us.More...?


21/22

Exam style questions

Part a:

Outline the view that Gods existence is necessary.

Outline two strengths of the ontological argument.

Explain and illustrate the view that if Gods existence is conceivable then he

must exist.Outline two versions of the ontological argument.

Explain the view that Gods existence can be demonstrated a priori.

Part b:

Assess the view that Gods existence is necessary.

Consider the strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument.

Assess the view that Gods existence can be demonstrated a priori.


22/22

(B) Consider the claim that the existence of God can be

established without the aid of experience. (30 marks)

INCLUDE:

Explain at least ONE version of the argument (including what TYPE of argument

it is)

Explain the STRENGTHS of the argument and your judgement on them

The TWO criticisms of the ontological argument discuss them and offer

responses and judgements

A CONCLUSION that ANSWERS the QUESTION...

USE SIGN-POSTS... E.g. My first objection is... A response is...., My judgement

is...

the ont arg

Documents