Ontological Argument notes for students | Lecture notes Religious studies

ONTOLOGICAL ARUGUMENT



The ontological argument is based on a discussion of the essential nature of God (the idea that God

is the greatest being and the idea that God is a necessary being). The argument aims to ‘define’

God into existence, using our a priori knowledge. The argument itself is deductive and analytical.

Anselm’s ontological:



he intended to demonstrate God’s existence (in chapter two of the Proslogion) and demonstrate

that God is indeed the type of God Christians believe in.



1stFORM: GOD = GREATEST BEING



– God = the greatest possible being that can be thought of- God is (greatest

conceivable being)



– It is greater to exist in reality than the mind alone(the painter’s painting is better than

the painter’s imagination)



– If God only exists in the mind (orin intellectu) then a greater being could be

conceived which exists in both mind and reality.



– This greatest conceivable being from premise 1, must therefore exist in the mind

and in reality.



 Therefore, God exists as a being ‘in re’ and ‘in intellectu’.



To understand and accept the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being, and at

the same time does not accept that God exists in reality, is proved to be illogical.

Only “the Fool…says in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14)



2NDFORM: GOD= NECESSSARY BEING



– God’s existence is necessary



– A necessary being is greater than a contingent being



Therefore, it is impossible to conceive of a Godnotexisting(for the predicate is contained

in the subject)



Gaunilo’s Criticism:

From Gaunilo, contemporary critic of Anselm’s work, ‘On Behalf of The Fool’.

– He believed Anselm’s argument to be wishful thinking- anything thought could be

permitted into existence.

– His famous example = that of the perfect island. He explains that for a perfect

island to exist only in our minds contradicts the definition of ‘perfect island’- therefore,

with Anselm’s logic, it must exist in reality too.

– This is of course not true- we cannot define things into existence.

Anselm’s response:



– The islands cannot be compared to God. God is the greatest possiblebeing

– Moreover, God is not a contingent being like an island is, so the analogy does not

work.

– God’s perfection is necessary, while an island’s is not. Perfection = part of God’s

intrinsic nature- Islands, on the other hand, have no intrinsic maximum

Partial preview of the text

Download Ontological Argument notes for students and more Lecture notes Religious studies in PDF only on Docsity!

ONTOLOGICAL ARUGUMENT The ontological argument is based on a discussion of the essential nature of God (the idea that God is the greatest being and the idea that God is a necessary being). The argument aims to ‘define’ God into existence, using our a priori knowledge. The argument itself is deductive and analytical. Anselm’s ontological: he intended to demonstrate God’s existence (in chapter two of the Proslogion) and demonstrate that God is indeed the type of God Christians believe in. 1 st^ FORM: GOD = GREATEST BEING

God = the greatest possible being that can be thought of- God is ( greatest conceivable being)
It is greater to exist in reality than the mind alone (the painter’s painting is better than the painter’s imagination)
If God only exists in the mind (or in intellectu ) then a greater being could be conceived which exists in both mind and reality.
This greatest conceivable being from premise 1, must therefore exist in the mind and in reality. Therefore, God exists as a being ‘in re’ and ‘in intellectu’. To understand and accept the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being, and at the same time does not accept that God exists in reality, is proved to be illogical. Only “the Fool…says in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14) 2 ND^ FORM: GOD= NECESSSARY BEING
God’s existence is necessary
A necessary being is greater than a contingent being Therefore, it is impossible to conceive of a God not existing (for the predicate is contained in the subject) Gaunilo’s Criticism: From Gaunilo, contemporary critic of Anselm’s work, ‘On Behalf of The Fool’.
He believed Anselm’s argument to be wishful thinking- anything thought could be permitted into existence.
His famous example = that of the perfect island. He explains that for a perfect island to exist only in our minds contradicts the definition of ‘perfect island’- therefore, with Anselm’s logic, it must exist in reality too.
This is of course not true- we cannot define things into existence. Anselm’s response:
The islands cannot be compared to God. God is the greatest possible being
Moreover, God is not a contingent being like an island is, so the analogy does not work.
God’s perfection is necessary, while an island’s is not. Perfection = part of God’s intrinsic nature- Islands, on the other hand, have no intrinsic maximum

The ontological argument has therefore, not been successfully parodied. Descartes’ Ontological: Descartes deconstructed his knowledge then started to rebuild it –firm on the idea that the world based on two principles: that mathematic truths are indubitable and he himself exists (- doubting requires a doubter; he is a thinking being, therefore, he is a being). Through rejecting all sensory experience in his ‘Meditations’ – he believed the only way to prove God was to use a priori logic. His argument: We can conceive a perfect being; existence is part of perfection; the perfect being must therefore exist.

To be perfect means to ‘lack nothing’- if God were to ‘lack existence’, he would not be perfect.
Existence= part of God’s immutable essence: A triangle having three-sides is like the perfect being having existence- the qualities are inseparable/immutable. Kant’s criticism:
Existence is not a predicate.
Existence = always a separate issue from what something’s essential nature is. Moreover, the statement ‘God exists’ adds nothing to his definition- it doesn’t make him ‘great’-e.g. of real 50 Thalers being no greater than imaginary 50 Thalers. Existence is not part of perfection- being real does not make something greater.
To say God has a necessary existence may be perfectly true, but it does not mean that God has to exist in reality- nor is it contradictory to think of a possible being with a necessary existence. Ultimately, inductive knowledge is necessary- all statements about existence are synthetic, not analytic (‘true by nature’). Norman Malcolm’s argument:
God’s (non-contingent) existence = either impossible or necessary
God’s existence is not impossible
Therefore, God’s existence is necessary. (Issue arises with word ‘impossible’- if we were to switch it to ‘inconceivable’, the argument then doesn’t hold) Alvin Plantinga’s argument:
God is that than which no greater can be conceived
God’s existence is not impossible; God exists in some possible world.
It is greater to exist in all worlds, not just one
Therefore, God exists in all worlds, including ours. Strengths of OA:
Deductive and analytic- logical consistency
Existence can act as a definition of character- e.g., to an atheist, adding the character “he exists”, changes things. Therefore, existence can be a predicate. Weaknesses of OA:
Existence in reality is not greater than existence in imagination, from a deductive argument stance.
Necessary existence does not mean existence in reality- Kant’s point elucidates the flaw in Anselm’s process.

Ontological Argument notes for students, Lecture notes of Religious studies

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Ontological Argument notes for students and more Lecture notes Religious studies in PDF only on Docsity!