Download Half Term Homework – Ontological Revision

The Ontological Argument.
“That than which nothing greater can exist” (Anselm)
“A supremely perfect being” (Descartes)
Two statements linked to the Ontological argument. The Ontological Argument
proves that God exists through the basic logic that for God to be all the things we
perceive him to be he must firstly EXIST.
Start by defining these key terms:
Immanent
_____________________________________________________________________
Transcendent
_____________________________________________________________________
Omnipotent
_____________________________________________________________________
Omniscient.
_____________________________________________________________________
These are the basic attributes of God but there are many more; perfect, eternal,
infinite, simple, impassible, loving, caring. Add more to the list if you
can__________________________________________________________________
Back to the Ontological Argument
The ontological argument is a priori, which uses the meaning of God and logic to
prove Gods’ existence. The argument was introduced by St Anselm of Canterbury
(1033 – 1109) in his book Proslogian. St Anselm propounded what is known as the
classical argument.
The classical Ontological Argument.
There are two major contributors to the classical ontological argument, Anselm and
Descartes.
St Anselm of Canterbury.
Anselm defined God as `that which nothing greater can be conceived’ According to
Anselm even the atheist must have a definition of God, if only to dismiss his
existence.
Therefore God (like dragons) exists in the mind.
But, God must exist in reality because He is that which nothing greater can be
conceived!!
Why is this so? Because something in reality is better than just imagining it. Imagine
being a millionaire, now wouldn’t it be better if that were actually true?
As Anselm says;
“Therefore, Lord not only are You that which nothing greater can be conceived but
you are also something greater than can be conceived. Indeed, since it is possible to
be conceived to be something of this kind, if you are not this very thing, something
can be conceived greater than You, which cannot be done.”
St Anselm, Proslogion.
So Anselm has suggested a proof for Gods existence, however there must be more to
God than just existence. Anselm then attempts to prove that God is necessary.
To suggest God is necessary is to suggest there is no possibility of Him not existing.
Anselm suggests we need to know more than that He exists inside our minds,
Anselm suggests we DO know this in his 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 which nothing greater can be
conceived.’
 This is because something that can be thought not to exist would be inferior
to that which cannot
Anselm felt he had both demonstrated the existence of God, and that it was
necessary for God to exist.
Now try to write out Anselm’s two arguments and main points in your own words
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Rene Descartes.
Descartes developed Anselm’s argument, through defining God as a Supremely
Perfect Being.
What does perfection mean?
_____________________________________________________________________
Descartes defined God as perfect, and argues that God must exist, as existence is a
predicate of perfection. For example when we mentioned the money earlier,
perfection would be if the money existed. Descartes said the God not existing would
be like a triangle not having three sides and therefore logically impossible. Perfection
is part of existence and both must go together.
Outline Descartes ontological argument in your own words
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Modern versions of the Ontological argument.
Norman Malcolm (1911 – 1990)
Malcolm believes that Anselm is saying that God must exist because the concept of
God is the concept of a being whose existence is necessary. Malcolm develops
Anselm’s argument as follows:
“ If God, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived, does not exist then he
cannot come into existence. For if He did He would either have been caused to come
into existence or have happened to come into existence, and in either case He would
be a limited being, which by our conception of Him He is not. Since He cannot come
into existence, if He does not exist His existence is impossible. If he does exist he
cannot have come into existence …… nor can He cease to exist, for nothing could
cause Him to cease to exist. So if God exists His existence is necessary.
Thus God’s existence is either impossible or necessary. It can be the former only if
the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or in some way logically absurd.
Assuming that this is not so, it follows that He necessarily exists.”
Norman Malcolm.
What is Malcolm arguing? How does he do this?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Alvin Plantinga (note, complicated theory here!)
Plantinga developed the philosophical notion of ‘possible worlds’. For example in
this world Mrs Hutton is a teacher. BUT if I had concentrated on singing when I was
a child I could now be a word famous (if a bit old) pop star – in another ‘possible
world’. Obviously there could be many differences and an infinite number of
possible worlds.
Think about this notion, what kind of possible worlds are there for you? What could
affect your world?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
With this in mind Plantinga offers the following description of another, possible
world:
 There is a possible world, W, in which there exists a being with ‘maximal
greatness'
 A being has maximal greatness only if it exists in every possible world.
This means that in every possible world there is a being of maximal greatness. This
however does not mean God!
Plantinga states that to be maximally great, a being only has to be present in every
possible world. Plantinga has not accounted for the existence of a being in one
world, which is greater than the maximal being.
To deal with this, Plantinga introduces the idea of ‘maximal excellence’. He states
that:
 Maximal greatness entails maximal excellence
 Maximal excellence entails omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection.
Therefore:
1. There is a possible world in which there is a being that is maximally
great.
2. It has maximal excellence (entailed within maximal greatness).
3. If omnipotent, omniscience and morally perfect, and maximally
great, it is existent in our world.
4. Therefore, there is a God.
Briefly describe what Plantinga is saying in your own words
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Now read over the Chapter both your textbooks and your notes from class and add
your own descriptive notes here:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
How successful is the Ontological argument?
The following people have criticised the Ontological Argument:
Add some biographical detail about them:
Gaunilo of Marmoutier
Immanuel Kant
Bertrand Russell
Gaunilo of Marmoutier.
Gaunilo criticised Anselms' jump from definition to existence, he uses the example of
an Island, if you are able to describe a ‘perfect’ Island, then as part of its perfection it
must exist.
What else could you describe, that is perfect?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Gaulino's criticism becomes invalid when you consider Anselm was talking about
that which nothing greater can be conceived. Gaunilo was only using the examples
of Islands.
But what if you say an Island that which no greater Island can be conceived, does this
then knock down Anselm?
The answer is No as Plantinga points out Islands have no intrinsic maximum, in other
words an Island could always be bettered I can imagine a bluer lagoon or better
weather.
Immanuel Kant
Kant objects to Descartes by saying that you can give something a definition but
whether that exists in reality is a different subject altogether.
Kant does not agree with Descartes that existence is a predicate.
Kant states that to say something exits gives us no information about that thing. E.g.
X exits but what is it?
A predicate must give us information about a thing not just that it exists.
“If X exists tells us about a property that X has, then X does not exist denies that it
has this property (or affirms that it lacks it). But, how can that which does not exist
lack anything?
Bertrand Russell.
The use of the word existence is wrong as it cannot be a predicate.
e.g. – Man exists
Santa is a man.
Therefore, Santa exists.
Existence is not a property but the idea of things.
Russell puts Anselm’s argument into different terms.
To label or define is to talk about the intention concerning the object. To describe an
animal with 4 legs and an udder is to have an intention to describe a cow.
The fact the cow exists provides an extension of an intention.
To conceive a cow and accept its existence is easy.
What about that which nothing greater can exist? The intention of the phrase is fine,
but does it have an extension?
Yes! If any idea can exist then that which nothing greater can be conceived must be
the totality of all ideas, it doesn’t have to have physical existence to be conceived as
long as it is conceivable.
Therefore Russell supports Anselms claim that God is the greatest thing you can
think of, but not that this proves God’s existence in reality.
Use the following space to explain the above Philosophers ideas in your own words:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
And to finish off:
Please can you write me an essay, due in before Sunday 11th November.
(a) Explain the Ontological Argument from Anselm and Gaunilo’s objection to it (25)
(b) ‘The Ontological Argument is a convincing argument’. Discuss. (10)