Studied by 0 people
What are inductive arguments?
A posteriori arguments meaning they rely on empirical evidence
They can only reach probabilities regarding the existence of God
These arguments reach conclusions by moving from a number of limited cases to all cases - making an inductive leap
What are deductive arguments?
A priori premises
Argument is valid (structured so that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion)
Argument is sound (the premises are true)
Conclusion will be a necessary truth
The contradiction of which is impossible
What type of argument is the ontological argument?
Deductive and puts forward the idea that God exists ‘by definition’ so saying ‘God doesn’t exist’ is a contradiction.
Explain St Anselm’s first ontological argument for the existence of God
God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.
Anselm begins the first version of his ontological argument with ‘Even a fool, when he hears of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived understands what he hears’.
Proves that existence is essential to our conception of God - as the greatest possible being He must exist.
Existence adds to the conception of God as it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in the mind alone, and therefore is self-evident that God exists.
What is the syllogism for Anselm’s argument?
P1. God is, by definition, a being than which none greater can be conceived
P2. To exist in reality is greater than to exist in the mind alone
P3. God exists as an idea in the mind
P4. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can conceive of something that is greater than God
C1. Therefore, the greatest possible being, God, must exist in the mind and in reality
Explain Schopenhauer’s criticism of Anselm’s first ontological argument
Describes Anselm’s argument as a ‘conjuring trick’.
It doesn’t seem intuitively possible that one can prove the existence of something without any empirical/a posteriori premises.
Schopenhauer says you can test the invalidity of an argument by using the same form but different content which leads to a false conclusion.
Syllogism;
P1. X is the greatest possible Y
P2. It is greater to exist both in reality than to exist in the mind alone
C1. Therefore X (assuming P1 is true) must exist in reality
Explain Descartes ontological argument for the existence of God
Uses methodological doubt to reach ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ by examining concepts held in his mind to determine which ideas are clear and distinct and thus true.
He then attempts to apply the same method to prove the existence of God.
Defines God as a supremely perfect being.
I must have the idea of a supremely perfect being because I possess the idea of perfection.
The causal adequacy principle states that ‘There must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause.’
Therefore, my perfect idea could only have come from a supremely perfect being.
So I have the idea of a supremely perfect being (God).
Descartes asks if it’s possible to separate the existence of a supremely perfect being from this definition of God’s essence. He concludes that it isn’t possible, in the same way that a triangle is inseparable from the idea of internal angles summing to 180 degrees.
He argues that this is then self-evident that the property of existence is contained in the nature of God, just as the property of internal angles summing to 180 degrees is contained in the nature of a triangle.
Existence is a perfection as existence in reality (formal reality) is greater then non-existence (representational reality). Given the nature of perfection as an absolute term, anything which is ‘more perfect’ than something else is by definition a perfection.
Therefore, God’s existence is self-evident.
What is the syllogism for Descartes’ ontological argument for the existence of God
P1. I have an idea of God (a supremely perfect being)
P2. A supremely perfect being must have all perfections
P3. Existence is a perfection
C1. Therefore God exists
Explain Norman Malcolm’s ontological argument for the existence of God
Malcolm’s ontological argument is a development of Anselm’s second ontological argument found in his Proslogion.
Distinguishes between contingent and necessary existence.
As God is the greatest possible being, with all perfections including aseity, God must be eternal unlimited, and dependent on nothing for His existence.
As an unlimited being, God cannot be limited by, or dependent on anything else. Therefore God’s existence isn’t a contingent matter, it must be either logically impossible or logically necessary.
According to Malcolm, the existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible as the concept of an unlimited is not self-contradictory.
So God’s existence is not impossible, therefore, the existence of an unlimited being must be logically necessary and so God exists.
Explain the distinction between contingent and necessary existence
A being with contingent existence;
Is limited, dependent on other things for its existence
May conceivably not have existed
Is caused to come into existence and to cease to exist
A being with necessary existence;
Is unlimited, dependent on nothing else for its existence
Must exist (its inconceivable that a necessary being may not have existed)
Cannot be caused to come into existence or cease to exist
Malcolm concludes that ‘necessary existence’, rather than ‘existence’ is a property of God because it adds to the concept of God, implying God is unlimited, dependent on nothing, and was not caused by anything else.
What is the syllogism for Malcolm’s ontological argument for the existence of God?
P1. God is, as a matter of definition, an unlimited being
P2. The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible
P3. The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible
C1. Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary
How does Malcolm’s ontological argument avoid Kant’s criticism that ‘existence is not a predicate’?
Malcolm’s argument doesn’t rely on the idea that existence is a property as it does not refer to the same type of existence as Descartes and Anselm argue for.
Malcolm instead argues for ‘necessary existence’ being a property of God.
Explain how John Hick uses modal logic to criticise Malcolm’s position.
Hick argues that Malcolm is confusing himself between two types of necessity.
Logical necessity;
The opposite of logically necessary is logically impossible
This logic only applies to tautologies as they cannot be denied without contradiction
Factual/Ontologically necessity;
Hick argues this is the type of necessity concerned with existence
If a being is ontologically necessary, then it exists without being dependent on anything for its existence - it doesn’t exist contingently (rather than saying that its existence must be the case)
However, whilst that which is not logically necessary is logically impossible, the fact that a being’s existence is factually necessary doesn’t mean it is factually impossible for that being not to exist
Explain Gaunilo’s perfect island criticism
Gaunilo suggests that there are all sorts of weird and wonderful objects which exist in the mind whose existence we can ‘prove’ using Anselm’s argument.
He gives the example of an island, in the same way that Anselm’s notion of God as ‘a being than which none greater can be conceived’ guarantees God’s existence, Gaunilo suggests that the ability to think of an island, than which none greater can be conceived’ should guarantee its existence.
Yet such an island doesn’t exist and therefore Gaunilo suggests that Anselm’s argument is fallacious.
The only way to prove the existence of a piland would be to establish the ‘real and indubitable’ fact of its existence.
Similarly, Gaunilo argues that Anselm is wrong to use understanding of the nature of God as the greatest conceivable being to prove God’s existence, instead, God’s existence must too be shown in fact.
What is the syllogism for Gaunilo’s argument?
P1. It is a conceptual truth that a perfect island (piland) is an island than which none greater can be conceived
P2. A piland exists as an idea in the mind
P3. A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind
P4. Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can conceive of an island that us greater than a piland
P5. But we cannot conceive of an island that is greater than a piland
C1. Therefore, a piland exists
Explain the response to Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s first ontological argument
An argument that the idea of a greatest possible island is incoherent in a way that the idea of a greatest possible being is not.
It is impossible to imagine an island than which none greater can be conceived as no matter how great an island is in some respect, it will always be possible to conceive of one which is even greater.
This is because there is no intrinsic maximum for the perfect characteristics to create a piland, e.g. a perfect number of raspberry bushes.
However properties like knowledge, power, etc. all have intrinsic maximums, therefore God is the only being whose definition includes conceptually intrinsic maximums. Hence Anselm’s definition works for God but not for an island.
Therefore meaning Gaunilo has committed a category mistake, referring to contingent idea of perfection in order to criticise an argument referring to a being whose perfection is necessary.
Explain Hume’s objection to the ontological argument
Hume argues that you can’t use a priori arguments to prove the existence of something as nothing can be proven unless its opposite entails a contradiction + anything which can be thought of to exist, can also be thought of to not exist.
So there is no being whose existence can be proved.
Proving applies only to relations of ideas, claiming existence is a matter of fact.
So whether or not God exists is a matter of fact and ontological arguments attempting to prove God’s existence a priori must fail.
What is the syllogism for Hume’s objection to the ontological argument?
P1. Nothing that can be distinctly conceived entails a contradiction
P2. For any being that we can conceive of to exist, it is also possible to distinctly conceive of that being as non-existent
C1. Therefore, it follows that there isn’t any being whose non-existence entails a contradiction
Explain Ayer’s objection to the ontological argument
Conclusions of arguments based on a priori statements tell us nothing about the way the world is (like whether god exists).
Arguments based on tautologies cannot draw conclusions that tell us about existence as we can only validly deduce tautologies from other tautologies.
So ontological arguments for the existence of God which rely on a priori premises do not work.
What is the syllogism for Ayer’s objection to the ontological argument?
P1. A priori propositions are certain because they are tautologies
P2. From a set of tautologies only further tautologies can be validly deduced
P3. The existence of anything, including God, is not a tautology
C1. Therefore, we cannot validly deduced the existence of God from a priori propositions and the ontological argument fails
Explain Russell’s objection to the ontological argument
Russell argues that ‘exists’ means ‘corresponds to something actual in the real world’
So the existence of anything must be verified or falsified empirically as statements concerning existence are synthetic
Thus a priori arguments commit a category mistake as they use synthetic statements (about existence) in a priori arguments
e.g. the statements ‘cows exist’ and ‘cows eat grass’ work in the same way, the predicate in each case is the same, but the two statements are different as one is adding to the concept of a cow, whereas the other does not.
To say ‘cows exist’ does not tell us anything about cows.
So existence isn’t a real predicate.
Explain Kant’s argument that existence is not a real predicate
A predicate is ‘a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing’. For example, the concept of Santa has the predicates of a white beard, wears red, fat man, etc.
‘Existence’ is not a real predicate as if I say ‘There is a God’, I have added nothing to the conception of God. Whereas, if I say ‘God is omnipotent’, then I have added the concept of omnipotence to the conception of God.
So therefore the concept of ‘existence’ cannot be added to the concept of God in an a priori context. A priori knowledge concerns only that which is discoverable ‘in the mind alone’, so it deals with concepts and uses analytic statements to portray these concepts. If Kant is correct, then God’s ‘existence’ cannot be shown through a priori methods. Instead, the ‘existence’ of something must be shown through synthetic a posteriori statements if it cannot be shown through analytical statements.
Therefore the logic is wrong as the argument has attempted to use that which can only be shown through synthetic statements in an argument which concerns solely analytic statements.
Note
Flashcard