The Ontological Arguement

Its doesn't start from experience
Claims to arrive at the existence of God
1. If the arguement succeeds, the existence of God is logically necessary
Posteriori and priori
1. Posteriori statements rely on external evidence e.g. Boys in year 11 do better than boys in year 10
2. Priori statements don't rely on externals (facts) to be worked out e.g. The prime minster is a man. Uses logic to work out
3. Analytic and synthetic
  1. Analytic statements are necessarily true because of the statement e.g. Grass takes in sunlight. Grass is a plant and plants take in sunlight
  2. Synthetic statements which are true because of the evidence but you need edvience to work it out e.g. The Grass is green. This is true but the grass can come in yellow or you may be colour blind
  3. The problem is that the question God exists can be an analytic or synthetic statement
St Anselm
1. He used an a priori argument to conclude the existence of God
  1. Argues simiply from the concept of God for the existence of God
2. The prosologion
  1. God is "a being which nothing greater can be conceived"
  2. God exists at least in the mind and understanding (de dicto) whether someone belives in him or not
    1. 'And the fool hath said in his heart "there is not God"' Psalm 14:1
  3. Something that exists in reality (dere) is superior then in the mind
3. The painter analogy
  1. Something is better in real life than in the mind
    1. If God only exists in the mind, he isn't the greatest being
      1. God must exist in the mind as well as reality in order to be logically consistent with our definition
    2. Existing makes it the greatest than in the mind
  2. The painter's finished project will be better in real life than in the mind
4. Benedictine monk that would become the archbishop of canterbury
5. There's a debate if whether he intended his ontological arguement to conclusively prove the existence of God or whether he was simply seeking to demonstrate the rationality of faith
Ontos means being + logos ( words and knowledge) arguing the existence of God from knowledge
On behalf of the fool. Pity the fool.
1. One of the criticisms of Anselm's ontological arguement- Gaunilo
2. The fool can have all kinds of made-up things in his head
  1. Gossip for instances can be seen as unrealieable- how can the fool discern what is true and false
3. Can't define things into existence
4. The perfet island
  1. Even when there is a perfet island. There can be more out there
    1. They must all be sound
  2. Need to figure out the right and wrong
  3. Anselm augred that you couldn't compare God to an island
    1. An island must be caused to exist by something and that thing is God
5. God cannot thought not to exist
  1. A being you can imageine not to exist. E.g a yeti
    1. If you exist, you are greater than a yeti
  2. Existence is a predicate of God cit's a property or quality of God's nature
    1. A predicate is the main properties or qualties or something e.g. all cats have four legs, tail, paws, whiskers etc.
Rene Descartes
1. "I think there for I am" the concept of if you think, you exist.
2. If a triangle never existed. We'll still know it has three sides by looking at the name of the shape
3. Part one
  1. God exists as a idea in the mind
    1. God is a supremely perfect being
    2. Relying on innate idea of God, people possess
      1. The less they can do they [God's characteristices] appear capable of proceeding from me alone
        We must conclude God exists
  2. God necessarily exists because that's where our idea of God came from as a imperfect being. We can't develop that idea.
4. His senses wouldn't derive those propeties as clearly and distinctly as his mind
5. Part two
  1. Existence is a predicate of God
    1. As superemely perfect being. God must posses existence otherwise that being is not perfect
    2. God must exist in reality
  2. God must exist as existence is predicateof supremely perfect being
    1. God without existence is the same of thinking of mountains without a valley
      1. The mind cannot conceive of perfection without also conceiving of existence
Weaknesses
1. Kant states that if say something about X. You're aren't telling anyone about X
  1. The Predicate must give us information about X and not say that X exists
  2. E.g. A triangle exists but there's no information on a triangle
  3. God cannot be an exception to the rule since this is a priori statement
  4. This is a paradox
    1. The property that doesn't tell us that X exists
2. Aquinas states that people can have different concepts of God and defining God
  1. "It doesn't therefore follow that he understands what the word signifies exist actually, but only that it exists mentaly"
Strengths
1. The premises move logically to a conclusion which is contained in the premises themselves
2. Supports modern versions as it can adapted into modern times
3. It's analytic as God implies existence and God's existence is logically necessary
4. The conclusion that God exists due to him being "nothing greater can be conceived"
5. Requires experience
6. Moves logicaly to a conclusion

Siguiente

The Ontological Arguement

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por Alexander Bishop hace casi 9 años