Arguments from Reason (Ontological) - A Level RS OCR

What is the basis of ontological arguments?

What exists in reality is better than what exists as ideas.

What is ontology?

What it means to exist, often involving a priori logic and working from definitions.

Who supported the ontological argument?

Anselm, Descartes, Malcolm, Plantinga.

Who opposed the ontological argument?

Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant.

What book did Anselm write?

Proslogion.

Who was Anselm?

Medieval theologian, Archbishop of Canterbury, faith seeking understanding.

What from Psalms 14 did Anselm highlight?

"The fool says in his heart there is no God".

What did Anselm say about the fool?

Only a fool would look at his logic and know what he meant by God then still say he didn't exist.

What is Version 1 of Anselm's argument?

Premise 1 - God is a being TTWNGCBC.

Premise 2 - It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than the mind alone.

Conclusion - God exists in the mind and reality.

What was Anselm's analogy to demonstrate his first ontological argument?

A painter has in his mind the idea of a painting that does not exist.

A painter has in his mind the idea of a painting that does exist.

Arguably, the painting that is thought of and exists in reality is greater.

What was Version 2 of Anselm's ontological argument?

Premise 1 - God is a being TTWNGCBC.

Premise 2 - It is greater to exist as necessary than contingent.

Conclusion - God exists necessarily.

What was Gaunilo's criticism called?

"On behalf of the fool".

Who was Gaunilo?

11th century contemporary of Anselm. Monk. Never doubted God.

What is a criticism of Anselm from the POV of capacity?

Can we finite, epistemically distanced humans even think of/conceive God/infinite greatness?

What did Gaunilo say about Anselm's idea of God by defininition?

Understanding is not accepting. Just because we understand a definition e.g. TTWNGCBC, doesn't mean we have to accept it exists or that it does exist.

What logical fallacy did Gaunilo say Anselm made?

Circular logic - "God is perfect, perfect exists, therefore God exists". Assumption necessary.

What did Russell say as an example of why Anselm's circular logic is wrong?

"Santa is a man", "All man exists", "Santa exists".

What is Gaunilo's island example?

If you are told about a perfect island, it would be better in reality - Anselm's circular reasoning could be used to say it exists.

Just because something is conceivable, does not mean it exists in reality. If Anselm can prove a non-existent island, his logic is flawed.

How did Anselm respond to Gaunilo's island?

Islands are contingent (have a beginning and end, are dependent). They are not eternal and necessary and thus can't be compared to God, who is necessary, unique and eternal.

What did Anselm claim about his argument in terms of statements?

It is analytic as true by definition without the need for experience.

What did Descartes say about God?

He is a "supremely perfect being".

What does Descartes feel about God as supremely perfect?

- God possesses all perfections.

- This perfect state includes existence.

- Existence is affirmed by God.

What did Descartes believe about existence and God?

Existence as a predicate - "Existence can no more be separated from God than having three angles equal to two right angles be separated from a triangle."

What is a predicate?

A necessary part of something that tells the subject what it does, part of definition.

How did Descartes say God exists?

1. Whatever belongs to the essence of something can't be denied of it.

2. God's essence includes existence as he is supremely perfect.

3. Existence must be affirmed by God.

How did Descartes clarify his argument around necessity and contingency?

- The argument cannot be applied to contingency, only perfection and necessity.

- Only God can be absolutely perfect.

- Cannot be two absolutes.

How may Descartes be using circular logic via affirmation of existence/perfection?

What is God? Perfect.

What is Perfect? God.

What are the three main criticisms of the ontological argument?

- Definition of God?

- Existence as a predicate?

- Deriving existence from definition.

What did Kant say about existence?

It is not a predicate.

How did Kant criticise Descartes?

- Descartes says existence is a property of perfection.

- Kant said this was untrue as existence is implied, it is not a predicate.

Why does Kant say existence is not a predicate?

It doesn't add to description e.g. you wouldn't say 'John laughed, he exists'.

Existence is implied, it is not a predicate.

What should predicates do and why does Kant feel this doesn't align with God's existence?

- Should add to our understanding.

- By stating God exists, we are not adding anything.

- Existence is an assumption, not part of God's existence.

- Saying 'God Exists' after describing his nature gives us no extra knowledge.

Why did Kant oppose the use of existence as a property alongside other things?

It cannot be ascribed alongside other things - it seems to be a different category. Kant, therefore, opposed it as a predicate in this way as you don't say something exists when describing it, that is implied.

What did Kant say about existence and perfection?

Existence is not a perfection, that is assumptive - it is in a different category.

What does Kant say about God existing vs not?

A God that exists may be more useful, however knowing this does not add to his essence.

Adding existence to God does not change him from being a Supremely Perfect Being, thus Descartes is wrong.

What did Kant believe about existence as a proposition?

It is synthetic as the predicate is not in the statement and it requires external verification e.g. 'Jane is a spinster'. Only possibly true.

What mistake did Kant say Descartes and Anselm made in describing existence?

It is synthetic, not analytic as they stated - the truth of it cannot be solved logically as it is based on senory data.

How would Kant criticise Anselm's necessity argument?

Anselm calls God necessary so puts in a separate category - Kant says this is wrong as it seems to be calling a synthetic proposition analytic.

- TTWNGCBC is not true by definition.

Why did Kant call existence synthetic in terms of contradictions?

Existence as a property can be contradicted so is synthetic, not an absolute or analytic logical statement. Using it as analytic is wrong.

Why may Descartes and Anselm using synthetic statements as analytic be justified?

They were faith seeking understanding so would say God is absolute;.

Why did Russell oppose the ontological argument?

It used a syllogism - a deductive argument jumping from the general to the specific, e.g. a man exists, santa is a man, santa exists.

What did Russell say about existence as a property?

It is not a property, it is the ideas & extension of something.

- e.g. Dragons do not exist. We know what a dragon is, and we know of all existing things, a dragon is not.

- A cow has udders, legs etc. Existence is an extension, doesn't add to something, not in the definition.

What were Aquinas' three main objections to the ontological argument?

- Defining God

- Existence as a predicate

- Deriving existence from definition.

As an empiricist, how did Aquinas criticise the ontological proof for God?

- God can't be proved just from logic - experience is needed.

- We cannot 'know' God by our own means.

- It is wrong for a priori scholars like Anselm to claim it is contradictory to deny God and thus assume him.

- Thus, they need to use observation too.

How did Aquinas oppose ontological means of 'knowing' God certainly?

- We are weak and limited - we cannot understand God or know him certainly.

- Our concept of God does not prove him by definition, as our ideas are still limited.

- Even if we had an idea of God, it wouldn't be enough.

- Therefore, if we cannot understand God, we certainly cannot say existence is somehow part of his nature as an assumption.

What did Aquinas say about 'existence' of God?

- Existence is a human concept, and God is outside of time and space.

- If we can't understand God fully and he is beyond us, we cannot assume that he exists out of logic and therefore need observation.

How did Aquinas criticise from the basis of perfection?

Greatness and perfection can be added to - are they really quantifiable or meaningful?