Term
| Supporters of the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
- Anselm
- Descartes
- Malcolm
- Plantinga
|
|
|
Term
| Critics of the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
- Gaunilo
- Kant
- Frege
- Russell
|
|
|
Term
| Summary of Anselm's first argument |
|
Definition
- "God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived"
- Atheists can define God even if they dont believe in him
- God exists in our minds
- Something that exists in reality is bound to be better than something that exists only in the mind
- If there is no being greater than God and things are always greater in reality than in thought...
- Logically God must exist in reality
|
|
|
Term
| Summary of Anselm's second argument |
|
Definition
-
A necessary being is a living self-aware thing that must exist for all other things to exist
-
It cant be thought of as not existing because then nothing else could exist
-
But things clearly exist
-
Which is greater, a God who cannot be thought of as not existing or a God who can - its a God who cant
-
God must be necessary because necessary existence is greater than contingent existence
|
|
|
Term
| Strengths and Weaknesses of Anselm's Ontological Arguments |
|
Definition
- Logical - makes sense
- Relies on the belief that we already think God exists - simply a confirmation
- An a priori, analytic argument - doesn't need to be experienced to be known
- No hard evidence - all built upon technicalities
|
|
|
Term
| Descartes' Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
"I think therefore I am"
-
God has many predicates and existence is one of them
-
A most perfect being would logically hold all the attributes of perfection, one of these is existence
-
Therefore God must exist because existence is a perfection and God is perfect
-
Because God is perfect, he can exist necessarily
-
It is part of God's being to exist
|
|
|
Term
| Descartes' Analogies for the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
- Triangle -> A triangle has 3 sides, this is what makes it a triangle. Any more or less, it would not be a triangle. 3 sides is a part of what it means to be a triangle
- Mountain -> A mountain has a valley. To talk about a mountain is to talk about a valley too - the two things are inseperable, you cannot have one without the other
- God -> If you talk about God, you are speaking about a being that exists. God has to exist to be God. Existence is a part of what it means to be God
|
|
|
Term
| Strengths and Weaknesses of Descartes' Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
- Cannot be inherently disproven, as it relies purely on a priori reasoning
- Cannot be inherently proven either
- Descartes' definition of God is reasonably universal
- Lots of people would still not agree with it, so it cannot be fairly claimed
|
|
|
Term
| Summary of Malcolm's support of the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
Existence isnt a normal predicate - it is more a state of being than a descriptive quality
-
It makes sense to say my future house will be better if it is insulated than if it is not
-
But what does it mean to say my future house will be better if it exists than if it does not
-
If it doesnt exist then there is no 'thing' to be better
-
This is the same with God
|
|
|
Term
| Malcolm's alternative to th traditional Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
If God exists, his existence is necessary
-
If God does not exist, his existence is impossible
-
Either God exists or he does not
-
It is not impossible for God to exist
-
Therefore God must necessarily exist
|
|
|
Term
| Plantinga's support of the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
There are other possible worlds that may have been
-
Any logically consistent description of a world is a possible world
-
To say something is possible, is to say there is a possible world in which the thing is actual
-
To say something is necessary is to say that in every possible world it is actual
-
If God exists, he is a necessary being
-
It is possible God exists, therefore he must exist
|
|
|
Term
| Gaunilo's criticisms of Anselm's Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
If you were told to think of the most perfect island ever, you would be able to do so
-
If you were told that the island would be even better if it was real than just in the mind, then since things are always better when they are real, and it is the most perfect island ever, it must be real
-
However this perfect island doesn't exist in reality, only your mind
-
Therefore Anselm's argument is clearly flawed; you cannot move straight from thought to reality
|
|
|
Term
| Anselm's response to Gaunilo's criticism of the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
You cannot possibly compare God to an island
-
We know all islands had a beginning and will have an end one day, as they are contingent
-
An island does not have eternal existence - it is finite
-
God, however, is unique and eternal - he is necessary
-
God is other-worldly, so the supreme laws that apply to him are very different from the inferior, finite laws that apply to things of this world, like an island
|
|
|
Term
| Kant's criticisms of Descartes' Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
Agreed with Descartes' 3-sided triangle, but said if you don't have a triangle in the first place then there isn't a triangle to have 3 sides
-
If you believe in God then it is logical to think to think his existence is necessary, but Gods necessary existence is not proof that God exists within itself
-
We know a unicorn has a horn, but that doesnt mean they exist
-
Because you can define something doesnt make it real
-
Kant accepts that whilst some statements cant be thought of without the predicate (1+1=2), 'God exists' isnt one of them
|
|
|
Term
| Kant's criticism of the Ontological Argument - Coin Analogy |
|
Definition
-
Imagine an imaginary 100 coins - this would still have the same value and amount of coins as a real 100 coins
-
All you are doing by stating it exists is asserting that there is a real example of it
-
You are not improving the description of it, because the existence adds nthing to the physical appearence or worth of the coins
-
Existence, then, is not a predicate so Descartes uses the word 'predicate' wrong
|
|
|
Term
| Frege's criticisms of the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
Said we need to compare the way we use the concept of existence with the way we use numbers
-
To say God exists is not a to attribute a property to an object
-
To say tigers exist, you are not giving a property to them, you are saying that their value is proportional to X tigers
-
Although existence grammatically appears to be an adjective or a predicate it is not
|
|
|
Term
| Russell's Criticisms of the Ontological Argument |
|
Definition
-
Existence cannot be a predicate, it is a state of being and not a characteristic
-
Anselm and Descartes use the word 'exist' wrongly
-
We must distinguish between the grammatical and logical functios of a predicate
-
Logically, the word 'exists' just says there is an instance of the concept in the real world
|
|
|
