Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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]