Argument from reason

Anselm’s first argument

1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived

2. A real, existence being is better than one in the imagination

3. Therefore, God exists in mind and reality

This argument is not written to convince atheists!! Anselm believed faith came before understanding

Anselm’s second argument

A deductive argument:

1. God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived of

2. Something which cannot be thought not to exist is greater than anything which can be thought not to exist

3. Therefore, it is impossible to think that this being cannot exist

4. This being is what we call God

Gaunilo’s island

He argued Anslem’s logic could be applied to many absurd scenarios

1. It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island

2. It is greater to exist in reality than to only exist in the mind

3. Therefore, the most perfect and real lost island must exist in reality

This method is called ‘reductio ab absurdum’

Other criticisms Guanilo had

• Ex of gossip: shows it is usual to hold unreal ideas in our minds, even if we think they are real

• Not all people see God as ‘Greatest possible being’

• Possible to imagine God’s non-existence in the same way it is our own

Anslem’s response to Gaunilo’s island

• Islands exist contingently: they don’t have to exist for us to imagine them. God’s existence is necessary and logical so he must exist > islands have no intrinsic maximum, they can always be bettered e.g. another palm tree. However, God cannot be improved

• Contingent beings have existence conditions separate from their definition, therefore can’t be known a priori e.g. perfect island requires water, but not whether the water exists

Descartes

He started with ‘God must be ultimately perfect in every way in order to be God’. He held it was just absurd to think of a perfect being that did not exist, as it was to conceive of a triangle without 3 angels. He believed existence is a perfection. God is perfect and unchanging, so he must have always existed in order to exist for eternity.

Kant’s argument

Kant had 2 objections

1. Existence isn’t a real predicate the way ‘red’ or ‘large’ is, therefore makes no difference. He used the analogy of thalers, he stated if he had 200 existing and 200 imaginary, the idea is the same

2. God can’t be an exception to the rule, the ontological argument only provides a definition of God to see if there may be a being to fill the role. It isn’t a priori analytic, but a synthetic hypothesis

Russel’s King of France example

• Development on the idea existence isn’t a predicate

• A statement ‘The King of France is bald’, a logical statement and can either be true or false. However, neither are the case as there is no King of France.

• Used to suggest Kant fails as he fails to recognise the possibility God doesn’t exist

Is reason capable of answering questions about God?

(No)

• Existence does not describe something but it tells us it ‘is’ > idea of painter

• Do we all have same idea of God? For someone to disagree on 1, whole argument falls apart

• General > specific, therefore can’t be disproven until empirically specified God’s epistemic distance prevents this therefore, unfair

Is reason capable of answering questions about God?

(Yes)

• Reason is used in science, why not apply it to God?
  Used a definition even ‘the fool’ can agree on

• Logic creates a string of reasonable arguments e.g. a greater God would be one that exists in reality as well as mind