AQA philosophy- ontological argument

what type of argument is it

a priori: based on logical deduction, a rational argument

deductive: guarantees the truth of the conclusion (if the premises of the argument are correct, the conclusion must be true)

what type of statement is it

analytical: a statement that is true by definition (eg: a triangle has 3 sides)

“the fool says… there is no God”

ontological argument is a direct response to this quote. If the fool talks about God not existing, he must already have a concept of God

quote that shows Anslem already had faith (the argument is a prayer)

“I believe in order to understand”. He is a theologian so he already had faith (theistic language game). Belief should precede understanding

how does the ontological argument argue the existence of God

by definition God must exist, once he’s correctly defined, you can’t doubt his existence

what are the 5 premises of the 1st ontological argument

• “God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived”

• even the fool who denies the existence of God can accept this definition

• there is a difference between having an idea of God in the mind and knowing that He exists in reality

• it is greater for God to exist both in the mind & reality

• if God only existed in the mind, you could think of something greater than God that exists in reality

• conclusion: God necessarily exists because you can’t conceive of something greater than God

who criticised the 1st ontological argument

Gaunilo (theist). Believed that Anselm’s argument was flawed

premises of Gaunilo’s perfect lost island

• it’s possible to conceive the most perfect lost island

• it’s greater to exist in reality than only in the mind

• conclusion: therefore, the most perfect lost island must necessarily exist in reality

how does The Perfect Lost Island criticise Anselm’s argument

reductio ad absurdum & overload objections:

• reducing the argument to absurdity

• there are many a posteriori (you can see that it’s not true) examples of how absurd the argument would be if it was taken as true

how does Anslem respond to Gaunilo

Gaunilo is talking about contingent things (can’t exist necessarily), God isn’t. Necessary existence is only a predicate of God, and not of things.

what are the 5 premises of 2nd ontological argument

• either God exists or He doesn’t

• If He exists, His existence must be necessary “God can’t be conceived not to exist”

• only contingent things and logically impossible things can’t exist (eg: square circles)

• God is not a logically impossible thing, there are no logical contradictions

• God is necessary

• conclusion: His existence is the only possible state left

support of 2nd ontological

Descartes

how does Descartes define God

“the supremely perfect being”. Therefore he must posses existence

how does Descartes support 2nd ontological (quote)

existence is part of the essence of God. In the same way a mountain can’t be separated from a valley, God can’t be separated from existence “existence can no more be separated from the existence of God”

strengths of the ontological argument

• it has certainty since it’s a deductive argument

  • doesn’t rely on empiricism/observation. Avoids the problem of us not being able to trust our senses because they deceive us. Plato “the body is a source of endless trouble for us”. We can ensure that the conclusion is true, if it succeeds than its an absolute truth that God exists

• supported by Descartes

  • more up-to-date piece of support from a high-profile philosopher which gives more credibility

weaknesses of the ontological argument

• Gaunilo’s perfect lost island

  • 1st ontological argument can be used to prove an endless number of perfect objects “the real fool is anyone who argued something into existence this way”

  • Anselm’s counter: his argument only works for necessary beings, not contingent. Then he made 2nd ontological argument

• Kant responding to Descartes

  • existence is not a predicate. Saying God exists adds nothing to our understanding of his essence; real predicates add to our knowledge. Logic alone is insufficient, we need sense experience to truly understand that something exists

• language games: the argument depends on accepting Anselm’s definition of God

  • his 2nd premise assumes that even the fool (an atheist) accepts his definition of God but this isn’t true. The argument requires religious faith, someone has to be part of the same language game as Anselm (subjective argument). For atheists, this argument doesn’t prove the existence of God because the 1st premise fails

  • Karl Barth (neo-orthodox): argument was a result of a religious experience Anslem had, so it can’t be truth. The argument is about faith not logic

ontological has vs. hasn’t got value for religious faith