Transcript God exists

A Mickey Mouse Guide to
the Ontological Argument
Only the fool hath said in his
heart that there is no God!
What type of argument is it?
• 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. It gives a certain,
rather than probable/improbable 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’).
Once more…
a posteriori
inductive
synthetic
So, it’s an a priori, deductive and analytical
argument. It’s not based on experience and
observation, it’s not probabilistic but gives
a certain conclusion, and finally, its truth
depends on the meaning of the terms used.
EASY! Only the fool of Psalm 14 could fail
to get a good grade on this topic.
Meet St Anselm of Canterbury…
Hi, I’m the philosopher St Anselm. I was
Archbishop of Canterbury in the late 11th century. I
first devised the ontological argument in parts 2
and 3 of my book, the Proslogion (written 1078).
Some philosophers aren’t entirely
sure that Anselm was trying to prove
that God exists. Perhaps instead he
sought to bring an element of
reason and reflection to his own
personal faith. As he says in his
Proslogion: “I believe in order to
understand.” Perhaps proof of God
follows from faith already gained…
Proslogion 2
• Assuming that Anselm is trying to give a proof of God, his main
argument is developed in Proslogion 2.
• He begins by defining God as “that than which nothing greater
can be conceived”. That means, it is impossible to think of
anything with greater value or which has qualities (knowledge,
power, etc.) to a greater degree.
• According to Anselm, even “the fool” (Psalm 14) who denies
God at least has a concept of God present in the mind.
• Once we have a concept of God, we ask, does God exist
merely in the understanding or in reality as well?
• If God existed merely in the understanding, then we could
conceive of a being great (one which existed). Therefore, the
greatest conceivable being cannot exist in the mind only, but
must exist in reality as well.
Dead easy!
Greatest Conceivable Being
Not So Great a Being
All knowing
All knowing
All powerful
All powerful
All loving
Just
Timeless
EXISTING
All loving
Just
Timeless
Non-existent
It is impossible to conceive of a ‘greatest being’ which does not really
exist, since then it would not be the greatest. Existence is a real property
which a true concept of God must possess. Existence is a ‘great making
property’. If we have a true concept of God then he MUST exist.
Proslogion 3
• In Proslogion 3, Anselm seeks to show that God’s existence is
necessary. That means, logically, he is a being that cannot not
exist.
• Let us assume that God is the greatest conceivable being.
Would it be possible for him to go out of existence? No,
because a being which could not cease to exist would be
greater.
• Similarly, would it be possible for God to have come into
existence, having previously not existed? No, because a God
who has always existed would be greater.
• Therefore, Anselm shows that the greatest conceivable being
(God) cannot not exist – his existence is necessary.
• Everything but God exists contingently (it might not exist), but
only God exists necessarily.
Gaunilo’s Objection: What about
the greatest conceivable island?
The monk and philosopher Gaunilo
rejected Anselm’s argument by
making a parody of it. Let us say
that we have a concept of the
greatest conceivable island –
beautiful and great in all respects.
Now, let us ask, does this island
exist in the mind only or in reality as
well?
According to Gaunilo, Anselm’s logic
is absurd because it demands that
this island too exists: “for if it did not
exist, any other land existing in
reality would be more excellent than
it”. The greatest conceivable island
must exist…
The perfect
island must
exist?...
Responding to Gaunilo
Anselm could actually respond to Gaunilo in
two different ways. His first argument is that
islands can only exist contingently – their
non-existence is always a possibility. So, to
speak of an island which cannot not exist is
nonsense. By contrast, only God exists
necessarily. Only the greatest conceivable
being could exist necessarily.
Anselm: not beaten yet
The second argument he could use is that an
island can never possess maximal properties.
No quality it could have could ever be
possessed to the maximum degree. Does it
have tasty fruit? It could always have a bit
more. Is the scenery nice? It could always be
a little bit nicer.
God is fundamentally
different because the properties he is
supposed to possess are maximal properties.
That’s Anselm sorted. But is his
argument convincing? Is it true that a
concept of God in the understanding
can lead us to God’s existence?
You need to evaluate that claim to
gain AO2 marks.
A different ontological argument:
René Descartes
The French philosopher René Descartes
was a very lazy gentleman who spent most
of his day in bed and the rest of his time
studying philosophy. In his Discourse on
Method he made the well-known argument
“I think, therefore I am”. For Descartes, the
existence of the self could be considered a
known logical fact. Once this is accepted,
we can then seek knowledge of the wider
universe. According to Descartes, the
second important piece of knowledge
following from our own existence is
knowledge of God. Perhaps we can prove
that he exists too, merely by logic.
Let’s start off with a definition of God.
By ‘God’ we mean a ‘supremely perfect
being’. By definition, therefore, God
must exist. Why? Because existence is
a perfection. A thing which did not exist
would by definition not be perfect,
because the existing version would be
more complete. So, anything perfect by
definition must exist.
“Existence can no more be separated
from the essence of God than the fact
that its three angles equal two right
angles can be separated from the
essence of a triangle.”
Triangle:
Angles equal to
two right angles
More objections to ontological arguments: Kant
The philosopher Immanuel Kant lived in the
late 18th century. He invented the phrase
‘ontological argument’ to describe the efforts of
Anselm and Descartes. Kant was not at all
convinced by such ‘proofs’.
His first main point is that ‘God does not exist’
is not self-contradictory. It is a statement which
may be true or false. Any statement about an
object can be self-contradictory, but if the
object is held not to exist in the first place then
it has no essence to be contradicted.
Kant’s second point is the (slightly) famous
phrase “existence is not a predicate”. That
means, in the statement “so and so exists” the
fact that he “exists” adds no real information
about him. By talking about “so and so” in the
first place, we assume that he exists.
Ontological arguments say that existence is
one of God’s qualities, but it’s not really a
quality at all.
But maybe Kant is wrong…
Kant’s first objection arguably deals with Descartes
pretty well – there’s nothing self-contradictory about
saying that God does not exist. But what about
Anselm? Brian Davies is less sure. He argues that
Anselm is not trying to say that we can move directly
from an idea of God to knowledge of his existence.
Instead, Anselm’s focus is upon the claim that the
greatest conceivable being cannot exist merely in the
mind. This is different from saying that God’s nonexistence is self-contradictory.
The second point is also contestable. We can think of
statements in which existence seem to add something
meaningful about the subject. If an object can be
conceived of as existing or not existing, then to say
that it exists means something. If an idea exists in the
intellect, then it is meaningful to consider whether it
exists in reality as well. For example, saying that
Father Christmas exists in my mind and in reality as
well tells us something about the object, because we
allow for his possible existence in the intellect alone.
Once more, Kant:
First objection:
Second objection:
Stating that ‘God does not exist’
is not a contradiction. Unless we
assume that an object exists in
the first place, we cannot make
contradictory statements about it.
“Existence is not a predicate”.
Saying that X exists does not
add real information about X,
because by talking about X in
the first place we assume that X
does indeed exist.
Reply to first objection:
Reply to second objection
Anselm is not so much saying
that a denial of God is a
contradiction. Rather, he is
suggesting that the greatest
conceivable being cannot exist
merely in the mind. There is a
difference.
Existence is a meaningful
predicate when applied to an
object which can be conceived
of as existing or not existing.
Anselm’s argument is about the
real existence of the God which
exists in the intellect.
A modern argument: Norman Malcolm
1. The definition of God is
that of a necessary being –
he must exist. If his nonexistence were possible,
he would not be the
greatest possible being
and would not properly be
God.
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.
2. So, God might or might
not exist, but if he does
exist then his existence is
necessary.
4. God as an impossible
being is self-contradictory
and absurd.
Therefore, God exists.
One last argument: 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 only 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 as such.