Download Ontological Argument

Ontological Argument
Today we take a brief look at the
basics of the Ontological argument
and give a early opinion about it’s
strength.
It is an a priori argument.
That means, it is not based on our experiences of the world
but relies on reason alone.
It is a deductive argument.
That means, if the premises (supporting statements) are true,
then the conclusion must be true. If true, the premises
logically entail the conclusion.
It is an analytical argument.
That means, its truth or falsity is given by the definition of
the terms used (e.g. ‘this triangle has three sides’ is
analytically true; ‘triangle’ = ‘three sided object’).
The ontological argument is
concerned with the concept of
existence.
What does grass depend on:
• To come into existence?
• To keep in existence?
• To stop existing?
What else could you say can
come into existence? Do the
same for them.
Is there anything which exists but which does not
depend on anything else for it’s existence?
From your initial understanding of the argument, can
you suggest God exists or doesn’t exist?
The Ontological Argument
This group of lessons is designed to build on the classical
arguments for existence of God we have already covered.
We will use video discussion and reading to examine the
details, strengths and weaknesses of the Ontological
Argument.
By the end, you will be able to answer an exam question to
the best of your ability and beyond.
Video?
The Ontological Argument is one of the five
classical arguments for the existence of God.
Religious
Experience
Cosmological
5 classical
arguments for
the existence
of God
Teleological
Moral Argument
The 5th
classical
arguments for
the existence
of God is …
It is an a priori argument
It is a deductive
argument
It’s flaws could come
from the value of ‘proof’
it provides AND what
the meaning of the word
‘God’ is for each of the
philosophers arguing the
case.
The Ontological
Argument
Ontology means “relating to being or
existence”.
Ontological arguments are different to other arguments for God’s existence,
because they are a priori. Rather than starting from some sort of experience of
the world, they rely solely on the definition of God.
Ontological arguments claim that if you understand what the word God means, then
you know that he exists, because existence is part of the definition of God. The
proposition “God exists” is therefore analytic and is necessarily true.
We will consider the first example of an ontological argument, put forward by St
Anselm (1033-1109), the objections to it, and then how it has been modified by
other philosophers up to the present day.
A PRIORI argument
This means it is based upon ideas prior to experience.
A
posteriori
Experience
i.e. the
universe
Argument
Belief in God
A priori
Belief in God
Argument
QED: Belief in
God
Experience
i.e. the
universe
All of the other philosophical arguments for existence of God are a posteriori. The
ontological argument is grounded in classic philosophical logical demonstration. It is
said to either totally succeed or totally fail!
BUT – it’s scope is greater than that of the other arguments because they can only
give a limited description of what God is like. Ontology’s ‘perfect being’ implies even
greater qualities.
The literal meaning of ontological is
‘concerned with being’ … the argument is
about the ‘being’ or existence of God.
First developed by St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109) in his book
‘Prosologion’.
Critics:
Supporters:
Aquinas
Immanuel Kant
Descartes
Norman Malcom
Alvin Plantinga
Video
First developed by St. Anselm of
Canterbury (1033 – 1109)
Saint Anselm was one of the most important
Christian thinkers of the eleventh century. He is
most famous in philosophy for having discovered
and articulated the so-called “ontological
argument;” and in theology for his doctrine of
the atonement.
However, his work extends to many other
important philosophical and theological matters,
among which are: understanding the aspects and
the unity of the divine nature; the extent of our
possible knowledge and understanding of the
divine nature; the complex nature of the will and
its involvement in free choice; the interworkings
of human willing and action and divine grace; the
natures of truth and justice; the natures and
origins of virtues and vices; the nature of evil as
negation or privation; and the condition and
implications of original sin.
Anselm’s argument was this:
First form
Began by defining God as ‘a being
than which nothing greater can be
conceived’.
Therefore God must be more than
just existing in people’s minds
The formal argument goes as such:
God is the greatest possible being
If God exists only in our
imagination then a greater being
could be conceived and exist.
This being would then be greater
than God
Therefore God cannot exist only as
an idea in the mind.
Therefore God exists in both mind
and reality.
Second form
This was further developed by
demonstrating that it is impossible to
conceive of God as not existing.
Based on idea of God is eternal – not
limited by or in time.
Anselm argued that God had necessary
existence. He cannot not be.
As a deductive argument it goes:
God is the greatest possible being.
It is greater to be a necessary being
than a contingent being.
If God only exists as a contingent he
can therefore be imagined not
existing. Therefore a greater being
could be imagined which would be a
greater being.
God therefore is a necessary being.
The summary
God is a logically,
necessary being
God cannot not
exist
Logically contradictory
for a necessary being to
not exist.
Analytic argument = one where the predicate is involved in the subject.
i.e. ‘All bachelors are single’
Subject
Analytic statement
doesn’t give new
information but
clarifies the old
Predicate
Ontology is about existence – it’s ‘secret’ is that existence is part of the concept of
God.
‘God exists’ is central to everything existing – an analytic existential proposition.
Analytic arguments can be true or false – how to decide whether it is true or false
depends on the meaning of the words.
Summarise the Ontological Argument
so far
Gaunilo’s Criticism of Anselm
Shortly after Anselm’s
first argument was
published, another monk
named Gaunilo wrote this
reply:
“It is said that somewhere in the ocean is an
island…and they say that this island has an
inestimable wealth…it is more excellent than all
other countries…Now if someone should tell me
that there is such an island, I should easily
understand his words… But suppose that he
went on to say…’since it is more excellent not to
be in the understanding alone, but to exist both
in the understanding and in reality, for this
reason, the island must exist’.”
Gaunilo is pointing out that Anselm’s reasoning
can be used to prove that anything exists, as
long as we claim it is the greatest or the most
excellent. But we don’t think that these things
must really exist. So we can’t rely on this
reasoning to work for the existence of God. We
need empirical evidence to prove that this most
excellent island really exists, so we need similar
evidence on which to base our belief in God.
What do you think of this response?
Gaunilo’s reply:
ON BEHALF OF THE FOOL
Anselm’s Argument…
Takes the form…
1. God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
1. X is Y.
2. If God did not exist, then God is not a being greater than which
nothing can be conceived.
2. If X did not exist, it would not
be Y.
3. But God is this being.
3. But X is Y.
4. Therefore, God must exist.
4. Therefore, X exists.
Gaunilo reasons that if he can find another example of X that we all know
does not exist then he can show that the argument is flawed. He settles
on the idea of a perfect island.
Task
• Read the text and work with the person next to you on a summary of
Gaunilo’s argument. Write it onto a mini-whiteboard.
Gaunilo’s Perfect Island
1. If the most perfect island did not exist, it would no longer
be the most perfect island.
2. But the perfect island is the most perfect island.
3. So the perfect island must exist.
BUT, Gaunilo knows that ‘the most perfect island’ doesn’t exist
(he imagined it just now!), so this is a reduction ad absurdum
argument to show that Anselm’s logic is flawed…you can prove
the existence of a most perfect anything!
Anselm’s replies
TO THE CATHOLIC (NOT THE FOOL!)
1. BUT, Anselm replies, a perfect island is NOT an example like
God. God, uniquely among all other things in the universe, is a
necessary being (i.e. he is not a being that can come in and out
of existence, like everything else – islands included). God is not
a thing that you add ‘existence’ on to as a description, He
MUST exist. So you can’t replace ‘God’ with ‘perfect island’ in
my argument.
2. The idea of total perfection makes sense with a being such as
God but it becomes incoherent with anything else in the
universe. What is the greatest amount of sunlight? What is
the greatest conceivable scenery? Surely you can always have
more coconuts on the perfect island? And it is personrelative, anyway; what if you don’t like coconuts!
Anselm’s replies
TO THE CATHOLIC (NOT THE
FOOL!)
1.
BUT, Anselm replies, a perfect island is NOT an example like God. God, uniquely
among all other things in the universe, is a necessary being (i.e. he is not a being
that can come in and out of existence, like everything else – islands included).
God is not a thing that you add ‘existence’ on to as a description, He MUST
exist. So you can’t replace ‘God’ with ‘perfect island’ in my argument.
– Reply? The concept of God has generally contained the idea of necessary
existence, but some (e.g. the Romans) did not think of God in these terms. You
could argue that the idea of necessary existence is not essential to the idea of
God.
2.
The idea of total perfection makes sense with a being such as God but it
becomes incoherent with anything else in the universe. What is the greatest
amount of sunlight? What is the greatest conceivable scenery? Surely you can
always have more coconuts on the perfect island? And it is person-relative,
anyway; what if you don’t like coconuts!
– Reply? Is the idea of a totally perfect being person-relative as well? Hitler’s
perfect being would be different from Ghandi’s…
Discuss:
What do you make of Anselm’s
replies?
Supporters of the Ontological Argument
– what do they have to say?
René Descartes
Considered the founder of modern philosophy.
“I think; therefore I am” – that which could be
known to be certain.
Based much of his philosophy on the new age of
science.
March 1596 –
February 1650
God became a guarantor for the certainty that the
external world exists.
His argument
God is a supremely
perfect being
Existence is a
perfection
God has all
perfections
Therefore, God, a supremely perfect being, exists!
Descartes’ Ontological Argument
•I have the idea of God
•The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
•A supremely perfect being has every perfection
•Existence is a perfection
•Therefore, God exists
Descartes is saying that it is part of the concept of God that
he exists.
Having three sides is part of the concept of a triangle.
So it is impossible for a triangle not to have three sides.
In the same way, existence is part of the concept of
God, so it is impossible for God not to exist. God’s
existence is necessary.
Triangle =
3 sides
Unicorn =
horse+horn
God = exists
What do you think of that?
1 Describe Descartes’ version of the
Ontological Argument.
2 In what ways is it similar/different to
Anselms?
3 List what makes it a valid argument and
where the argument is questionable.
What would be greater?
The imagination?
OR
Existing in reality?
Starter
6 In his ontological argument, how does Anselm define God?
[2 marks]
7 Outline the Ontological Argument. (Basic)
[5 marks]
Recap: Anselm’s argument was this:
First form
Began by defining God as ‘a being
than which nothing greater can be
conceived’.
Therefore God must be more than
just existing in people’s minds
The formal argument goes as such:
God is the greatest possible being
If God exists only in our
imagination then a greater being
could be conceived and exist.
This being would then be greater
than God
Therefore God cannot exist only as
an idea in the mind.
Therefore God exists in both mind
and reality.
Second form
This was further developed by
demonstrating that it is impossible to
conceive of God as not existing.
Based on idea of God is eternal – not
limited by or in time.
Anselm argued that God had necessary
existence. He cannot not be.
As a deductive argument it goes:
God is the greatest possible being.
It is greater to be a necessary being
than a contingent being.
If God only exists as a contingent he
can therefore be imagined not
existing. Therefore a greater being
could be imagined which would be a
greater being.
God therefore is a necessary being.
Recap: Descartes’ Ontological Argument
•I have the idea of God
•The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
•A supremely perfect being has every perfection
•Existence is a perfection
•Therefore, God exists
Descartes is saying that it is part of the concept of God that
he exists.
Having three sides is part of the concept of a triangle.
So it is impossible for a triangle not to have three sides.
In the same way, existence is part of the concept of
God, so it is impossible for God not to exist. God’s
existence is necessary.
Triangle =
3 sides
Unicorn =
horse+horn
God = exists
Descartes argument:
Objections & Replies
1.
Conceivability does not entail reality.
•
Reply: Existence is essential to God, so the idea of God is not like that of a winged
horse (which I can imagine with or without wings). In the case of essential
properties, such as triangles and angles etc., they are true necessarily.
2. It is possible not to conceive of God at all (cultures that do not have an idea of God).
– Reply: Whenever we do think of God (a perfect being), then the ontological
argument holds true. Similarly, Descartes’ argues, not having the concept of a
triangle prevents you from reflecting on it and this means that you can’t know
about three sides and angles etc., but that doesn’t mean that there is no such
thing as a triangle. Whenever we do gain the concept of a triangle, we then
understand certain other things about it deductively/automatically. So with the
concept of God.
3.
Leibniz’s criticism: ‘existence is a perfection’ is too vague. If we allow anything to
count as a ‘perfection’ then we end up contradicting ourselves (e.g. ‘God is able to do
anything’ vs ‘God is totally good so can’t do evil things’).
– Reply: Leibniz didn’t think this destroyed Descartes’ argument. He suggested
adding the premise ‘a perfection is a simple quality which is positive and absolute’
to avoid this problem.
Leibniz’s Addition to the Ontological
Argument
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a German polymath and philosopher
who occupies a prominent place in the history of mathematics and
the history of philosophy, having developed differential and integral
calculus independently of Isaac Newton.
Leibniz accepted Descartes’ argument, but felt that it was incomplete.
Leibniz saw the potential for problems with a list of ‘perfections’. If we allow
anything to qualify as being a perfection, we could end up with a set of perfections
that are incompatible with each other (as we saw in handout R1).
So Leibniz argued that a perfection must be simple and positive. That is, it can’t be
defined in terms of anything else, and it can’t be defined as the negative of
anything else. This means each perfection is self-contained and doesn’t place a
restriction on any other perfection, and therefore they couldn’t be incompatible
with each other. So it is possible for the perfections to co-exist in one being. So a
supremely perfect being is possible.
So Leibniz’s ontological argument is the same as Descartes’, but with the addition
of a premise: “A perfection is a simple quality which is positive and absolute”.
Hume’s Fork
“Hume’s fork” describes how we refer to Kant’s critique of Hume, who separated
knowledge into two types: facts based on ideas and facts based on experience.
TIP: Hume’s fork = “a two-pronged fork in which the two prongs (rationalism and
empiricism) never touch; or a fork in the road that never crosses.”
Hume’s Objection to Ontological
Arguments
As an empiricist, Hume thought that synthetic
knowledge could only be gained through sense
experience, not through reason alone.
So any argument that attempts to prove a
synthetic truth (that God exists) by using a
priori reasoning should, using Hume’s fork, be
disregarded.
Why?
Anselm and Descartes seem to have been
treating the proposition “God exists” as an
analytic one.
Analytic v Synthetic?
But Hume says that it must be synthetic,
because it is making a claim about what really
exists in the world.
Hume continues:
“Nothing that is distinctly conceivable involves a contradiction. Whatever
we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no
being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently,
there is no being whose existence is demonstrable.”
Hume’s main point here is that because we can imagine God not existing, it is not
contradictory to claim that he doesn’t exist. So his existence is not logically
necessary, as Anselm and Descartes have claimed.
Give me two reasons why people don’t believe in God …
Is that OK for them to conceive God not existing?
Are those arguments valid? Why?
Ontological Argument
General Objections 1: Hume
Recall Hume’s fork. What does he think about the possible of the
following kind of knowledge?
SYNTHETIC A PRIORI
• Hume: synthetic knowledge (about the world) can only be gained
through sense experience, not through reason alone.
GOD EXISTS
• Anselm and Descartes are treating this proposition as an analytic one.
Hume would argue, though, that it must be a synthetic proposition
because it is about the world.
Read the quote on p5 and underline the key points.
Philosophical Skills…
Most propositions consists of a subject
and a predicate.
The subject is what the proposition is about.
The predicate gives us information about the subject.
For example, in the sentence “the cat sat on the mat”, ‘the cat’ is the
subject and ‘sat on the mat’ is the predicate.
Immanuel Kant
Kant’s First Criticism – existence is not a property of God
“Existence is obviously not a real predicate.”
Descartes and Anselm both assume that existence is a predicate.
Kant says that real predicates add something to our concept, they give it new properties.
But ‘existence’ doesn’t do this.
Kant makes his point by asking us to imagine 100 Thalers (coins).
What would be greater?
We can imagine them being gold, round, heavy and old. These are all genuine
predicates because they change our understanding of the coins.
But if we then add “they exist”, nothing about our concept changes. There is no
difference between the idea of ‘100 coins’ and ‘100 coins that exist’.
So, ‘existence’ is not a real predicate. If Kant is right, then ontological arguments
fail because they claim that existence is part of the definition of God. If existence
is not a predicate then it can’t be part of the definition of God, or anything else.
The imagination?
OR
Existing in reality?
Ontological Argument
General Objections 2: Kant part 1
“Sunderland AFC are the best football club in
the world.”
The subject
Predicate
A predicate, then, tells us something about the
subject of a proposition.
Kant’s first criticism: existence is not a
predicate.
Kant’s Second Criticism – even if existence is a property of God, that doesn’t mean
he exists
In his second criticism, Kant temporarily accepts that existence is a real predicate,
along with Descartes’ claim that “God necessarily exists” is an analytic statement.
He argues that even if it is analytic, it doesn’t mean that God exists in reality.
For example, the definition of a unicorn is a horse with a horn. So it is necessarily
Read through p224-226 –
true that unicorns have horns. Any unicorn that we ever encounter must have a
whatbewas
Kant’s second
horn. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t
a unicorn.
argument?
But this doesn’t show that there are any unicorns in the world. All it shows is that
if there are any, they will necessarily have horns.
Kant says that the same reasoning applies to God.
Necessary existence may be part of the definition of God.
So we know that if God exists, then he exists necessarily.
But this doesn’t tell us whether he does exist in reality.
Descartes can define God however he likes. The definition
can only ever tell us about our concept of God. Nothing in
the definition can ever bridge the gap and tell us about
what exists in the real world. Like Hume, Kant thinks only
empirical evidence can do that.
Ontological Argument
General Objections 2: Kant part 2
Even if we grant the concept of God ‘necessary existence’, this still
doesn’t show that this concept actually refers to a real thing.
From the handout:
“Kant says that the same reasoning applies to God. Necessary existence
may be part of the definition of God. So we know that if God exists,
then he exists necessarily. But this doesn’t tell us whether he does
exist in reality.
Descartes can define God however he likes. The definition can only
ever tell us about our concept of God.
Nothing in the definition can ever bridge the gap and tell us about
what exists in the real world. Like Hume, Kant thinks only empirical
evidence can do that.”
Norman Malcolm
Modern versions 1
Identified two key arguments of Anselm's:
First, that a being whose non-existence is
logically impossible is greater than a being
whose non-existence is logically possible.
1960 – sought to distinguish
what he saw as two ontological
arguments proposed by Anselm.
Supported Kant's criticism of
Anselm's argument that
existence cannot be a
perfection of something;
however, he identified what he
sees as a second ontological
argument which is not
susceptible to such criticism
Secondly, Malcolm supported the definition
of God is a being "than which a greater
cannot be conceived". He suggested that it
makes the proposition of God's existence a
logically necessarily true statement (in the
same way that "a square has four sides" is
logically necessarily true).
Malcolm rejected the idea of existence
itself being a perfection. He did argue that
necessary existence is a perfection.
This, he argued, proved the existence of an
unsurpassably great necessary being
Malcolm’s Ontological Argument – from
the handout
Malcolm starts by considering every
possible situation regarding God’s
existence:
A. God’s existence is necessarily
false (logically impossible)
B. God’s existence is contingently
false (logically possible but happens
to be false)
C. God’s existence is contingently
true (logically possible and just
happens to be true)
D. God’s existence is necessarily true
(logically necessary- had to be true)
Then his argument proceeds:
1. God’s existence is either necessarily
false, contingently false, contingently
true or necessarily true. (One, and only
one, of claims ABCD must be true)
2. B and C cannot be true because God
has no beginning or end so cannot be
contingent.
3. A cannot be true because God’s
existence is not logically impossible
(self-contradictory)
4. Therefore, D must be true – God
necessarily exists
Philosophical Skills…
If something is necessarily true, then it is logically impossible or selfcontradictory for it to be false.
For example, the statement “all bachelors are unmarried” is necessarily
true because the opposite “some bachelors are married” could not possibly
be true.
If something is necessarily false, then it is logically impossible or selfcontradictory for it be true.
For example, the statement “my mother is younger than me” is logically
impossible. Just by understanding the concepts of the terms “mother” and
“younger”, we know that it must always be false, without knowing anything
about the world.
Responses – from handout
Response to Malcolm
The problem lies with
premise 3. Many people
claim that the very idea of
God (a timeless,
omnipotent, benevolent
being that exists) is
logically impossible. We
have already seen examples
such as the paradox of the
stone and the problem of
evil that question the
existence of a being with
these properties. If the
existence of God is selfcontradictory, then
statement A is true, and
statement D must be ruled
out instead.
Søren Kierkegaard – interesting
point but not needed on the spec
• 1813-1855
• Misconceived and ridiculous to attempt to
use reason to determine existence of God
• “For the fool says in his heart that there
is no God, but he who says in his heart or
to others: just wait a little and I shall
demonstrate it …What a superb
theme for crazy comedy”
A modern argument: Norman Malcolm –
an extra explanation of the same idea
1. The definition of God
is that of a necessary
being – he must exist. If
his non-existence were
possible, he would not be
the greatest possible
being and would not
properly be God.
2. So, though God’s
existence is disputed, if
he does exist then his
existence is necessary.
3. It thus follows that God’s
existence is either necessary
or it is impossible. There
cannot be such a thing as a
merely possible necessary
being, for what is necessary
cannot not exist.
4. The idea of God as an
impossible being is
groundless (there is no
disproof of God) and should
be rejected.
Therefore, God exists.
Modern versions 2
Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga offered an alternative argument.
He said, if Malcolm does prove the necessary existence
of the greatest possible being, it follows that there is a
being which exists in all worlds whose greatness in some
worlds is not surpassed.
It does not, he argued, demonstrate that such a being
has unsurpassed greatness in this world.
Trying to resolve this problem, Plantinga differentiated between "greatness" and
"excellence".
A being's excellence in a particular world depends only on its properties in that
world; a being's greatness depends on its properties in all worlds.
Therefore, the greatest possible being must have maximal excellence in every
possible world. Plantinga then restated Malcolm's argument, using the concept of
"maximal greatness".
He argued that it is possible for a being with maximal greatness to exist, so a being
with maximal greatness exists in a possible world. If this is the case, then a being
with maximal greatness exists in every world, and therefore in this world.
Plantinga’s Ontological Argument – from the
handout
Plantinga uses a similar strategy to Malcolm. But he bases his argument on the idea of possible
worlds.
A possible world is the way the world could have been. Some possible worlds are the same as this one
apart from one small detail. Others are completely different and have flying pigs, or no life at all. But
some things cannot be true in any possible world. For instance, there is no possible world where
triangles have two sides, 2 +3 = 4 or bachelors are married.
Plantinga’s version takes much the same form as earlier ontological arguments,
but he changes talk of necessary and contingent existence to a discussion of
possible worlds:
•God is the being with the maximal greatness
•There is at least one possible world in which God exists
•It is greater to exist in all worlds than to exist only in some
•So, because God has maximal greatness, he must exist in all possible worlds
•Therefore, God exists in the actual world
Modern versions – an extra explanation
A version of his argument is as follows:
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is
omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible
world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and
perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent
and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Plantinga argued that, although the first premise is not rationally established, it is
not contrary to reason. Michael Martin argued that, if certain components of
perfection are contradictory, such as omnipotence and omniscience, then the first
premise is contrary to reason. Martin also proposed parodies of the argument,
suggesting that the existence of anything can be demonstrated with Plantinga's
argument, provided it is defined as perfect or special in every possible world.
One last arrangement of the argument from Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga seeks to modify Malcolm’s argument with what are called
‘possible world semantics’. This is the way some philosophers seek to represent
logical possibilities. If something is possible, they say ‘in a possible world there
exists X’. Plantinga’s use of this method gives what is called ‘the modal
ontological argument’.
There is a possible
world in which there
exists a being of
maximal greatness (it
must exist) and
maximal excellence
(omniscience,
omnipotence, etc).
If a maximally great
and maximally excellent
being exists in one
possible world then it
must exist in all
possible worlds, or else
it would not be
maximally great and
excellent.
Our world is a
possible world.
Therefore, the
maximally great and
maximally excellent
being must exist in
our world too.
Therefore, God
exists
The problem here is that we seem to be able to conceive of a possible
world without a maximally great and maximally excellent being – that’s no
contradiction. We could also conceive of a maximally great and evil being
– must that also exist?
Responses – from handout
Response to Malcolm
Responses to Plantinga
The problem lies with
premise 3. Many people
claim that the very idea of
God (a timeless,
omnipotent, benevolent
being that exists) is
logically impossible. We
have already seen examples
such as the paradox of the
stone and the problem of
evil that question the
existence of a being with
these properties. If the
existence of God is selfcontradictory, then
statement A is true, and
statement D must be ruled
out instead.
The first response is to deny premise 2. Like in the
response to Malcolm, we can deny that the existence
of God is possible at all. If the concept of God is
incoherent, then there is no possible world in which
he could exist. The existence of a being with God’s
properties is as contradictory as the existence of a
triangle with 4 sides.
The second response is to deny premise 3. Although
it might seem obvious that existing is greater than
not existing, this is not necessarily the case. It is
tempting to think that something that doesn’t exist
has zero greatness, which is obviously less than the
value of something that does exist. But something
that doesn’t exist doesn’t have any value of
greatness, not even zero. So, it isn’t greater to exist
than not to exist, or to exist in more worlds rather
than fewer.
Final Thoughts…
Is existence a real predicate?
Is the idea of God’s nonexistence self-contradictory?
Is the claim “God exists” analytic
or synthetic?
Are the modern versions any
more convincing than Anselm’s
original argument?
Make a brainstorm of the different
forms of the Ontological Argument
Anselms
Argument 1 & 2
Plantinga’s
Argument
Malcolm’s
Argument
Gaunilo’s
criticism
Descartes
Argument
The
Ontological
Argument
Hume’s
criticism
Leibniz’
Argument
Kant’s
criticism
Critics of the Ontological Argument
Give a basic outline
of the Ontological
Argument
What are the
strengths of the
argument?
What would your
criticism of it
be?
The Philosophiser
Made by Mike Gershon –
[email protected]
Do we have any good reason to
think that God does or does not
exist?
exist
The strengths and weakness of
the Ontological argument
Today we will examine:
The Strengths and Weaknesses of
the Ontological Argument and
ultimately give your analysis of the
theory.
The outcome will be an AO2 exam
answer and analysis.
So what are the main elements of the
Ontological Argument?
Argument 1:
Argument 2:
Critic?
Critic?
So what are your thoughts about the
Ontological Argument?
Strengths
Weaknesses
Some suggestions about whether the
Ontological Arguments succeeds?
It is all very well to
show that the
existence of God is
logical, but until you
can show the
existence of God
empirically (e.g.
through creation,
design, religious
experiences and
miracles) many
people are going to
fail to be convinced.
Anselm’s argument is
more convincing than
Descartes as it does not
rely on the notion of an
objective necessity
connecting existence to
God.
There is a big problem
though in moving from
logical existence to
actual existence and it
may well be that the OA
fails to bridge this gap.
The OA might
succeed for the
believer who uses it
as part of a group of
arguments for the
existence of God to
support their beliefs.
But, the limits of the
argument are shown by
the lengths that Alvin
Plantinga had to go to, to
try to make it work (the
use of imaginary possible
worlds).
It succeeds
(particularly
the version
from Anselm)
in showing that
the concept of
God is not
illogical.
For those who
already believe
it shows that
their belief is
not irrational.
9
Outline the modern versions (Norman and Plantinga)
of the Ontological Argument
[9 marks]
10
The Ontological Argument proves God exists.
Assess this statement.
[15 marks]