Download
1 / 8
80 likes | 310 Views
The ontological argument. The Ontological Argument was devised by St. Anselm in his Proslogion 2-4. It is an a priori argument. It is deductive as it draws it’s argument purely from a set of premises. It makes no claims to truth, only logic. The Ontological Argument works from these premises:
E N D
The Ontological Argument was devised by St. Anselm in his Proslogion 2-4. It is an a priori argument. It is deductive as it draws it’s argument purely from a set of premises. It makes no claims to truth, only logic. The Ontological Argument works from these premises: • God is “that than which no greater can be conceived”. • Both believers and non-believers accept this, even ‘the fool’ from Psalm 14. • It is possible to exist either just in the mind, or in both the mind and reality. • It is better to exist in both the mind and in reality. “That than which no greater can be conceived” must exist in the mind AND in reality, being the best of all things i.e. God exists.
He then goes on to say that... • That which we cannot conceive as not existing must be greater than what we can conceive of not existing. • It would be absurd to say that “that which no greater can be conceived” does not exist, because that would mean a greater entity would exist in reality (because, according to Anselm, that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists only in the mind)
Malcolm • Malcolm resurrected the Ontological argument in the 1960s. His version went like so: • If God came into existence now, he would not be God. • If God does not existence now his existence is impossible (as he is eternal). • Therefore God’s existence is either necessary or impossible. • His existence would be impossible if it were contradictory or illogical. • It is not, so God’s existence is necessary. • In the same way, God is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent.
According to Malcolm his argument would only be accepted by believers. He viewed it as Euclid’s deduction of prime numbers; once you understand prime numbers, you must accept Euclid’s deduction. In the same way, only believer’s who have grasped necessary existence will accept his argument. • The problem with this is, it makes the argument seem fruitless; why prove something to those who are already convinced? Also, Anselm’s idea of the Ontological Argument involved even ‘the fool’ accepting his idea of God.
Challenges • A monk named Gaunilo replied on behalf of ‘the fool’, saying “I can conceive of a most real and perfect island.” • It is better to exist in mind and reality. • Therefore this island must exist. • The idea of a perfect island is absurd, as is Anselm’s argument. ANSELM REPLIED: • An island is contingent; as with all contingent things it can be conceived as not existing. Anselm claimed that “that than which no greater can be conceived” cannot not exist and the two are not comparable. He concluded that God’s existence is necessary. • Also, an island has no intrinsic maximum. It can always be bettered; trees can be added etc., whereas God cannot be bettered.
AQUINAS rejected the argument, on the grounds that there is no universally accepted definition of God. • DESCARTES, however, agreed with Anselm. His argument was this: • I can conceive of a perfect being that has all the perfections. • I must name these perfections. • Necessary existence is a perfection. • Any being which has ever not-existed cannot be perfect. • Therefore such a perfect being (God) must exist. Descartes argued that existence was God’s essence and could no more be separated from him than three points can be separated from a triangle.
KANT disagreed with Descartes – existence is not a predicate, he said. You can describe a black horse, but to say a black horse EXISTS adds nothing to the idea of the black horse. He also said that, seeing as we do not know God exists, the statement must be synthetic and not analytical. Therefore existence must be attached to God and not intrinsic to him.
