Ontological Argument

Anselm’s Ontological Argument

1. Psalm 14:1 “And the fool hath said in his heart ‘There is no G-d’”.

2. G-d is a being which nothing greater can be conceived of.

3. G-d exists in the mind and understanding (de dicto), whether a person believes in Him or not.

4. Something that exists in reality (de re) is superior to something that exists in the mind alone (de dicto).

5. If G-d only exists in the mind, then he is not the greatest possible being that can be conceived of.

6. G-d must exist in reality as well as in the mind in order to be logically consistent with our definition of G-d as the greatest possible being.

7. aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit - G-d is greater than which cannot be conceived.

8. Therefore, G-d exists.

Painter Analogy

1. If a painter preconceives an idea for a work of art, the finished product will always be superior to the idea of it alone.

2. In Proslogion, Anslem uses the following illustration:

• The painter knows what he is going to paint before he paints it.

• It exists in his understanding.

• When he paints it, it then exists in his understanding and in reality.

TTWNGCBC

To that which nothing greater can be conceived of.

Guanilo’s Argument

1. The lost island is that island than which no greater can be conceived.

2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

3. If the lost island does not exist, we can conceive of an ever greater island, that is one that does exist.

4. Therefore, the lost island must exist in reality.

Strength’s of Guanilo’s Argument

1. You can imagine something in your mind, but it not exist in reality.

2. Anslem is defining things into existence.

3. Bertrand Russell believes it is only meaningful if it refers to an ‘instance’ of something - something we can see.

Weaknesses of Guanilo’s Argument

1. Alvin Plantinga suggests an island has no intrinsic maxim - it can always be improved, G-d cannot be improved, hence the definition.

2. Gaunilo and Russell imply you need some empirical evidence, but arguments from observation also have problems.

Second Part of Anselm’s Argument

It is necessary that G-d exists.

1. Nothing greater than G-d can be conceived.

2. It is greater to exist as a necessary being than a contingent being.

3. If G-d exists only as a contingent being then a greater being can be imagined: a necessary being.

4. But if G-d is TTWNGCBC then that being has to be G-d.

5. Therefore, G-d must be necessary being and exist in reality.

Argument for Second Anselm Argument over Guanilo

An island is not necessary, by definition, so it cannot be necessary.

For Anselm’s Ontological Argument

1. Most people agree with the definition of G-d that Anselm gives.

2. It is better to rely on rational thinking rather than senses.

Against Anselm’s Ontological Argument

1. Is it possible to come up with a definition of G-d.

2. A priori arguments can also use invalid logic.

Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum

1. Doubted he knew anything.

2. He realised the only thing he knew was that he was thinking.

3. Concluded that he must exist, ‘I think, therefore I am’

Rene Descartes Argument for G-d

1. G-d is a supremely perfect being.

2. As G-d is a supremely perfect being, he possesses all perfections.

3. The perfect state includes existence, which is a perfection in itself.

4. Existence is a predicate of a perfect being.

5. Therefore G-d exists.

Summary of Descartes Argument

1. Whatever belongs to the essence of something cannot be denied of it.

2. G-d’s essence includes existence.

3. Therefore, G-d exists.

Descartes Response to Guanillo

1. The argument can only be applied to objects affected by time and space.

2. It can only apply to something that is perfect.

3. Only G-d can have absolute perfection - there cannot be two absolutes.

Wider Reading

To deny the existence of G-d is as absurd as saying ‘the existing such and such does not exist’ - J.L. Mackie.

Analytical Proposition

Predicate of the subject.

Synthetic Proposition

Not a predicate, e.g. shop sells sweets, the sweet selling isn’t a predicate of the shop.

Kant on Ontological Argument

1. Just because we can think of something as perfect doesn’t mean it actually exists.

2. Kant argued existence is not a characteristic or a quality, but its just whether something is real or not.

3. Even if we think that G-d is the most perfect thing imaginable, that doesn’t necessarily mean G-d exists in reality.

4. Existence of G-d is assumed to be analytical by Anselm, but it would be a synthetic proposition instead.

Counter to Kant

1. He contradicts himself.

2. He claims existence is not a characteristic, then precedes to characterise that some things are real and some are not.

3. Its the same as saying that me imagining a laptop and a laptop existing in reality are the same thing, they have all the same characteristics (as existence is not one of them).

Wider Reading Lesson 4

Russell

1. Russell says you can’t define something into existence.

2. You cannot make a square circle exist, just by calling it a necessarily existent square circle.

3. Like Kant, Russell is saying that existence is not a predicate, rather the ontological argument is a misuse of grammar.

4. Like Kant, Russell says that existence is misused if it is a predicate.

Fiedism

A fiedist is someone who “urges reliance on faith rather than reason in matters, philosophical and religious“ - Alvin Plantinga

Karl Barth on Faith

1. He denied the possibility of attaining any knowledge of G-d through the use of reason.

2. This supports the view that Anselm didn’t intend to prove the existence of G-d.

3. If we had the mental capacity to understand G-d and prove his existence, faith would not be necessary.

Descartes on Faith in G-d

1. Attempts to give a logical argument for G-d.

2. He required proof of G-d to justify his rationalist approach to knowledge and certainty.

Søren Kierkegaard

1. It is ridiculous to attempt to use reason to determine the existence of G-d.

2. “For the fool says in his heart that there is no G-d, but he who says in his heart or to others: just wait a little and I shall demonstrate it… What a superb them for a crazy comedy”

A priori Arguments are Better than A posteriori Arguments

1. They don’t rely on observation, which is good as senses can be deceiving.

2. Many A posteriori arguments still rely on synthetic A priori ideas, such as the principle of causality, so are essentially A priori arguments.

3. We aren’t sure whether what we observe will act the same in other situations, A posteriori is the fallacy of composition.

A posteriori Arguments are Better than A priori Arguments

1. You may draw false conclusions from A priori arguments, such as something existing from your imagination.

2. Everyone can observe it and verify it.

Wider Reading

1. Norman Malcolm

2. Alvin Plantinga

Norman Malcolm

1. Could not support Anselm’s first argument as existence is not a characteristic.

2. He supported Anselm’s second argument.

3. It is not possible to think of a necessary being to not exist, so He must exist.

Alvin Plantinga - Modal Ontological Argument

1. Plantinga developed the philosophical notion of possible worlds.

2. In each world there are many differences - the possibilities are infinite.

3. There is a possible world, W, in which there exists a being of ‘maximal greatness’.

4. A being only has maximal greatness, if it exists in every possible world.

5. Maximal greatness entails, maximal excellence (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and moral perfection).

Conclusion of Plantinga’s Modal Ontological Argument

1. There is a possible world, in which a being is maximally great.

2. If being maximally great, this being must exist in our world.

3. This being has maximal excellence, as this is entailed in maximal greatness.

4. Therefore, there is a G-d.

Plantinga and Guanilo

1. Islands are contingent.

2. G-d is eternal.

3. Islands do not have ‘intrinsic maximum’.