anselms ontological arg. objections

what kind of arg. is Gaunilo’s perfect island obj.

deductive - meaning that if yeh premises are true then the conclusion must also be true

what is the main aim of Gaunilo’s perfect island obj.

to argue that the ontological arg. rests in a logical error

what is Gaunilo’s perfect island obj. in standard form

• we can replace the idea of a GCB, with the idea of a perfect island

• so we can use anselm and descartes ontological arguments to prove the existence of anything that we deem to be perfect

• however these perfect objects of which we can conceive do not exist, so there must be an error in the reasoning if the ontological arguments

• therefore the ontological argument is invalid

what does gaunilo say would be necessary before he could believe in a GCB

some independent proof of its existence

what is the response to Gaunilo’s objection

• the concept of a GCB is general

• God is conceived ad the most perfect thing, meaning he is even more perfect than the perfect island

• aka there are other limiting factors which affect the ability of the islands existing but these do not apply to the GCB as the GCB isn’t contigent on anything for its existence in the same way an island is

• so the logic of Gaunilo’s objection doesnt refer to the ontological; arg.

what kind of arg is kants objection that ‘existence is not a predicate’

deductive - if premises are true then the conclusion must also be true

what does Kant mean by predicate

a property used describe a quality

what does Kant mean by substantiate

to say that there is a thing in the physical world that corresponds to the concept

what is the main aim of Kant’s objection

to argue that existence is not part pf the concept of God

what is Kant’s arg in standard form

• ontological args. assert that existence is some kind of perfection or that it is greater to exist than not to exist

• so ontological arguments treat existence as a predicate of God

• however ‘existence’ doens’t add any meaning to the concept - it just substantiates it

• so God’s existence is not a predicate

• so it is not analytic statement, rather a synthetic statement as saying ‘god exists’ doesnt explain anything about the concept of God

• therefore, God exists requires experience to determine of it is true or not

give humes fork objection to ontological arg

• nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction

• whatever we conceive of as existing, we can also conceive of as not existing

• therefore there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction, meaning it is not a relation of ideas

• so it cant be known a priori

what is the response to hume’s fork objection

• reject hume’s fork

• argue that not everything that we can conceive of as existing we can also conceive of as not existing

• because our minds are finite we separate the concepts of necessary existence and omnipotence

• but upon deep reflection we will find that they entail one another

• so it is a contradiction to deny God exists

what is the issue with the response hume’s fork objection

it falls victim to gaunt