PN2 - metaphysics of god - ontological arguements if god exists

define a priori

propostition based on defintion and logic alone, no experence needed

define a posteriori

a proposition based on experence alone

define deductive argument

if the premise is true, conclusion must also be true

define inductive argument

probablistic; truth of conclusion cannot be garenteed by truth of premsise

define ontological arguments

arguments that claim we can deduce the existence from the concept of god

what is Anselms argument? (what is is based on? P_ and D_)

his arguement is a priori knoweldge - based on logic not experince
his argument is a deductive argument - premise -> true = conclusion -> true

Outline Anslems arguement part 1

p1) by definition, god is a being greater than which cannot be conceived

p2) we can COHERENTLY conceive of such a being

p3) it is greater to exist in reality than only to exist in the mind

c1) therefore, god must exist

Outline Anslems arguement part 2 (x and y)

think of 2 almost identical beings: x & y
x is a being we can conceive not to exist
y's non-existence is inconceivable
y is greater than x

explain anslems part 2 argument

the greatest conceivable being is one who, we conceive, must exist.
the thought 'god does not exist seems to make sense, but on reflection, we find it is incoherent.

outline Gaunilo's objection 1 (concievablity)

how great is the greatest conceivable being?
- if it doesn't exist, it isn't great at all

we are thinking how great this being would be if it existed
- that doesn't show that it doesn't exist

sum up Guaniols second objection - P_ I_

perfect island

outline Gaunilo's objection 2

p1) you could prove anything PERFECT must exist by this argument.

p2) I can conceive of the PERFECT ISLAND, greater than one which cannot be conceived

c1) so such an island must exist, bc it would be less great if it didn't

[but this is ridiculous, so Anselm's ontological argument has failed]

what does incoherent mean?

illogical

Outline Anselms reply to Gaunilo

the thought that the greatest conceivable being doesn't exist is illogical (incoherent) But the thought that the greatest conceivable island doesn't exist is coherent
[they aren't comparable - as Gaunilo misses the point of God]

outline Anslem's reply to Gaunilo's objection 1

God wouldn't be god if there was something being even greater than god.
- being the greatest concievable being is an essential property of god.

this however doesn't deal with Gaunilo's objection - and is weak arguemnt

is anselms ontological argument proof

inductive arguments can only be probabilistic arguments, but deductive arguments are proof.

Anselm projects his argument as deductive so it would be seen as proof by those who agree with him.

however, I do not believe this argument is deductive and would counter it to be an inductive argument and therefore is not proof

how does Malcom reply to Anslem and Guanilo?

He responds alongside Anslem, to Guanilo’s perfect island analogy. He states that Anslem's response to the perfect island analogy is correct as he shows that God is a NECESSARY being. He also says that God cannot be conceived of not existing.

what is 1 weakness of Anslems Ontological arguement?

Anselm doesn't directly answer the main point of Gaunilo's objection:
we conceive God as the greatest conceivable being, this does not show that God IS the greatest conceivable being.
bc if God doesn't exist, God isn't a being at all.
[This is convincing because Anslem's reply is not valid]

what is a 2nd weakness of Anslems argument from Kant?

existence is not a predicate; to say 'cows exist' tells you nothing about cows existing.

what is 1 strength of Anslems ontological argument?

it is a deductive argument, so if it suceeds, it is a proof of the existence of God. Put another way, unlike other arguments for God's existence, such as the cosmological argument, it does not depend on anything we observe, and since human observation is not reliable, this can be seen as a positive.

what is a 2nd strength of Anslems ontological argument from Malcom?

Anselm's response to the perfect island anaology is correct as he shows that God is a NECESSARY being. He also says that God (and only God) cannot be conceived of as not exciting. Therefore shows that Anslem has proven the very nature and meaning of god must exist.

what is Descartes ontological arguement?

when we think of a triangle, it has certain qualities;
3 sides, angles = 180*
these qualities are necessary for the definition of triangles

what does Descartes rely on to form his arguement?

clear and distinct ideas

what is a clear idea?

one that is precise to the attentive mind

what is a distinct idea?

one that is clear and dosen’t rely on anything for it to be true

p1) God, by definition, is a supremely P_ being

p1) God, by definition, is a supremely PERFECT being

outline descarets ontological argument

p1) God, by definition, is a supremely perfect being
p2) a supremely perfect being has all perfections
p3) existence is a perfection
c1) there God has existence, he exists.

how does descartes use omnipotence to prove his argument?

A supremely perfect being is omnipotent. an omnipotent being cannot depend on anything else to exist, since then it would lack power. An omnipotent being has this power.
God is omnipotent by definition, so God must exist.

kant uses A_ and S_ terms to make his killer point

kant uses ANALTYTIC and SYNTHETIC terms to make his killer point

What is Kants killer argument (part 1)?

analytic = we say nothing new about the world
synthetic = does say something new about the world
'god is a necessary being' or 'god exists' are analytic statements. just talking about the WORDS not if god exists or not.

what is kants killer point (part 2)?

"the boy stood on the burning deck"
the boy = subject {God}
stood on the burning deck = predicate (verb & object) {existence}
Kant says that the 'existence' is not a predicate
it is not a property. Existence is to do with the subject not predicate

If you take away existence you take away everything and cannot argue God is real.

how would empiricists respond to descrates ontological argument?

they claim nothing can be shown through a priori resonsing alone, and it is not self-contradictory to say god doesn't exist.

what is humes objection to descartes?

There is a difference between thinking God exists and God actually existing ( you can infer one from another)
if 'God does not exist' is a contradiction, then 'God exists' is an analytic truth.
But this cannot be correct bc claims of what exist are matters of fact and therefore synthetic propositions.

how do empiricists use H_ to prove their criticism?

Hume - Humes fork

what does Humes Fork do?

separates what we know (relation of ideas) from a priori from claims of what exists (matters of fact)

what are matters of fact?

Matters of fact, require a sense of experience

what are relation of ideas?

a priori knowledge establishes relation of ideas

how would Descrate repsond to Hume's objection?

he defends his claim as a product of rational intuition, or deduction.

what is Descartes claim?

p1) nothing that is distinctively conceivable implies contradictions
p2) whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent
c1) therefore there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction

what are the following statements descartes makes?

'if god does not exist' is a contradiction, then 'god exists' is a relation of ideas, but claims about what exists are matters of fact

'if god does not exist' is a contradiction, then 'god exists' must be analytic, but claims about what exists are synthetic

therefore this disproves Kant and Hume's objections

What does malcom argue against from Anslems argument?

malcom argues against Anslems second arguement;

what is Anslems second argument?

think of 2 almost identical beings x & y
x is a being we can conceive not to exist
y's non existence is inconeivable
y is greater than x

what does Malcom argue Anslems arguement fails at?

Anslems argument does not compare a being that exists with one that doesn't. instead it compares 2 types of existence;
necessary and contingent

what are the 2 types of extence Maclom argues Anslem uses?

necessary and contingent

what is a necessary existence?

type of existence had by a being, such as god, but must exist

what is a contingent existence?

type of existence had by a being, such as humans, that can exist or not exist.

what is malcoms argument (part 1)

p1) either God exists or God does not exist
p2) God cannot come into existence or go out of it
p3) if God exists, God cannot cease to exist
c1) therefore, if God exists, God's existence is necessary
p4) if God doesn't exist, God cannot come into existence
c2) therefore, if God does not exist, God's existence is impossible
c3) therefore, God's existence is either necessary or impossible

what is malcoms argument (part 2)

p5) Gods existence is only impossible if the concept of God is self contradictory
p6) the concept of God is not self-contradictory
c4) therefore, God's existence is not impossible
c5) therefore, god exists necessarily

Is Malcom's argument convincing?

you could argue that his argument isn't as effective as Anslems bc Malcom isn't adding any new information compared to Anslems original point other than including necessary and contingent
however anslem does agree that his argument is necessary
so it is not a convincing arguement to disprove Anslems bc they are arguing the same things.