Transcript The Ontological Argument

The Ontological
Argument
Must God logically exist?
The Ontological Argument

Four main contributors to the argument




Anselm
Descartes
Gaunilo
Kant
The Ontological Argument

An a priori argument




Based on innate knowledge
logic
Attempts to prove existence of God from the
meaning of the word ‘God’
Depends on a particular understanding of
God
St Anselm of Canterbury


1033 -1109
Book – Proslogion
Classical concept of God

Omnipotent



Omniscient


All powerful
Can do anything
Knows all things, past, present and future
Omnipresent

Present at every place at same time
Anselm’s first argument

Anselm defined God as:


‘that than which nothing greater can be
conceived’
Everyone must have a definition of God


Therefore God exists in the mind


Even the atheist
Just as dragons exist in the mind
And therefore:

God must exist in reality because He is:

‘that than which nothing greater can be
conceived’
Gaunilo’s objection



If I were to describe the most perfect
Island
Then state that it must exist because of
its perfection
You would be a fool to believe me
Criticism of Gaunilo


Not comparing Like with Like
Anselm talks of


‘that than which nothing greater can be
conceived’
A greater Island can always be
conceived
Anselm’s second argument

Must be more to God than fact that He
exists


That would make him similar to us
Therefore God must be ‘necessary’

That is there is no possibility of Him not existing
Anselm’s second argument


It can be conceived that something
exists that cannot be thought not to exist
God must be such a thing if He is


‘that than which nothing greater can be
conceived’
This is because something that can be
thought not to exist would be inferior to
that which cannot
Descartes

1596-1650
Descartes argument

God is a supremely perfect being

Existence is a predicate of a perfect being


PREDICATE - the part of a sentence in which
something is said about the subject
Trying to image God without the predicate of
existence is illogical

Like a triangle without 3 sides
Kant

1724-1804
Kant’s objection


Opposed Descartes
Triangles





If you dismiss the idea of 3 sides (predicate)
And you dismiss the idea of the triangle (subject)
There is no contradiction
You can define a thing as you think fit
But that does not mean it exists
Kant’s objection


Opposed Anselm
Existence is not a predicate





To say that X exists tells you nothing about X
A predicate must say something about X
‘X is’ does not tell us anything about X
If ‘X exists’ tells us about a property of X then
‘X does not exist’ must tell us what X lacks
However, how can something that does not
exist lack anything?
Putting it together

Write bullet points that show how you
would go about answering the following
exam question:
(a) Explain the traditional forms of the ontological
argument put forward by Anselm and Descartes
(33)
(b) ‘The criticisms presented by Gaunilo and Kant
successfully reject these arguments.’ Discuss (17)