+
Related Flashcards
Cards In This Set
| Front | Back |
 The ontological argument derives from the Greek ontos (being) and logos (study of) consequently it is concerned with the nature of God. It is a priori as it sits outside spheres of our experience and due to its logical structure it is also deductive- for only one conclusion can be drawn from its premises. It focuses on analytical truths– truth through definition – and predominantly the analytical truth behind God. |
 Anselm wrote Proslogion in 1077 – he was greatly inspired by a psalm 14:1 of the bible, which stated that ‘only fools say in their heart “there is no God”’. Anselm believed for a fool to make this claim, he had to admit that God was a concept for otherwise he would be unable to reject - God is the greatest being which can ever be conceived - God may exist in the mind alone (in intellectu) or in reality (in re) as well -That which exists in both is far superior to that which remains a mere concept -“Hence there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived and it exists both in understanding and in reality” – St Anselm The third premise is the one which many find challenging, however, Anselm argued that there is an additional quality in that which material. A predicate or quality of God which, among others amounts to his definition, is his existence. it. This becomes the first premise of the theologian’s first ontological argument concerning the nature of Gods existence. |
 Descarte continued Anselms argument in his works on the Mediations of Philosophy written in 1641. Three out of the five mediations were trying to prove the existence of God and the fifth was a version of the ontological argument. Descarte used the analogy of a triangle – in order for it to be identified as thus it must have interior angles adding up to 180 in addition to three sides if it doesn’t it cannot be said to be a triangle. Similarly if God is an all-perfect being and existence is a predicate of perfection, God has to exist. The theologian set this out in the following structure. - God is a supremely perfect being. -A property of perfection is to exist -Therefore God must exist The second premise can be strengthened if one could envisage a perfect car. Now currently it is only an idea in your minds eye therefore it is not perfect, as it has not materialised into actuality. Descartes illustrated his point further by using the analogy of a mountain, with every mountain a valley rests at its base, it would be unfathomable to separate the two just as it would be unfathomable to separate God from his existence. |
Norman Malcom contributed to the ontological
argument by concluding God exists necessarily. Peter Vardy argued the
philosopher was not attempted to prove the de re existence of God so
much but the de dicto existence of God. Vardy used the analogy of the
equator to illustrate his point. The equator exists by definition, however,
there is no physical line which separates the two hemispheres. In the same way
that the equator is a reality for geographers, God is a reality for believers.
This is why the ontological argument is appealing to those of the catholic
community as they are able to comprehend the reality of God whereas outsiders
are not. Those who are able to go beyond the physical and into the metaphysical
are referred to as anti-realists.
|
|
Similar to the cosmological argument the
ontological argument focuses on the concepts of contingency and necessity. The
former refers to that which might not have existed and relays on others for its
existence and its self-preservation. The latter is immutable, it had to exist
as everything else depends on it.
|
 Anselms second ontological argument focussed on the necessity of God. - God is the greatest conceivable being -Something which is necessary is far more superior than that which is contingent -This being has to necessarily exists -And this being is God The philosopher believed that if anyone claimed the existence of God as impossible they were contradicting themselves for God is a necessary being and a necessary being cannot not exist. Descarte strengthened this claim by arguing just as a triangle has the predicate of three sides, God has the predicate for existence. Without this predicate one could not claim it was God therefore his existence is necessary. |
|
Part A - Ontological Argument Explained
|
Norman Malcolm put
forward four possibilities for the nature of Gods existence- the first being
that God necessarily couldn’t exist. For this to be possible it would have to
be logically absurd to conclude God’s existence as a possibility, however, we
already have seen through Anselms first ontological argument that it is a
possibility. The second possibility is that God does not exist contingently
therefore he is not here just by chance similarly the third possibility is God
does exist contingently therefore he is here by chance. Contingency implies
dependence and dependence implies subservience – both conflict with our
understanding of God.
|
|
Part B - The Ontological Argument Evaluated
|
On Aquinas’s view, even if we assume that everyone shares the same
concept of God as a being than which none greater can be imagined, “it
does not therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies
exists actually, but only that it exists mentally.” One natural interpretation of this somewhat ambiguous passage is that
Aquinas is rejecting premise 2 of Anselm’s argument on the ground that,
while we can rehearse the words “a being than which none greater can be
imagined” in our minds, we have no idea of what this sequence of words
really means. On this view, God is unlike any other reality known to
us; while we can easily understand concepts of finite things, the
concept of an infinitely great being dwarfs finite human understanding.
|
|
Kant's Criticism
Being is evidently not a real predicate, that is, a conception of something which is added to the conception of some other thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it. Logically, it is merely the copula of a judgement. The proposition, God is omnipotent, contains two conceptions, which have a certain object or content; the word is, is no additional predicate-it merely indicates the relation of the predicate to the subject. Now if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say, God is, or There is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates – I posit the object in relation to my conception. |
-
|
