RST3B

Question	Answer
The Ontological Argument AO1	...
The Ontological Argument	An argument which is based on proving God's existence. The OA is an a priori (not based upon experienced) argument as well as deductive (not based on past experience)
Anselm's First Argument	Anselm defined God as being a being 'that which nothing greater can be conceived.' If God is the greatest thing, then he must exist separately from peoples imaginations. Therefore, God must exist in reality and God must include actual existence. As an argument: -God is the greatest possible being -If God exists in the mind alone then a greater being could not be imagined to exist -God cannot only exist in the mind -God must exist in both reality and the mind
Anselm's Second Argument	Anselm argued that God is a different order of being. He said there was two types of existence that can fail to be a contingent existence (something that has dependency) and existence that cannot fail to be necessary existence (somethings non-existence would be self-contradiction). God cannot come and go out of existence. It is impossible to conceive of God not existing, God not only exists but also has necessary existence. As an argument: -God is the greatest possible being so nothing greater can be conceived -It is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being -God must be an necessary being and exist in reality
Gaunilo	Gaunilo challenged Anselm's first argument by saying 'if you conceive of the greatest of anything then it seems that t must have to exist, on the grounds that it is greater to exist in reality then in the mind only.' Gaunilo used the example of the 'greatest conceivable lost island' and contended that by Anselm's reasoning the lost island must exist, and so Anselm's argument must be flawed
Descartes' First Argument	Descartes' argument is based upon seeking to prove what we can be certain of in the universe. He concluded our own existence is through the ability to speak 'I think therefore I am.' Descartes' used the example that a triangle must have all of the properties he ascribes to it because the triangle exists as an idea in his mind and he clearly and distinctly perceives all of its properties. God exists in the mind and Descartes' has a clear and distinct definition of God as the 'supremely perfect being'
Descartes' Second Argument	Descartes' is arguing that existence is a predicate of God because, as a most-perfect being God must possess existence otherwise that being is not perfect. God exists because existence is a predicate of a most perfect being. God must exist in reality or God would not be perfect and this would be against the definition of God.
Differences between Anselm's and Descartes' Ontological Argument	Anselm: -There is no theory if absolute objective greatness. It is more that existing in reality is greater than existing as an idea -Existence in reality is greater when compared to existence that is in the mind only. There is no concept of total greatness of which existence is an aspect -Existence is not a predicate. It does not add to our concept of the subject Descartes: -There is the idea of absolute objective perfection -Existence is an aspect of the concept of total perfection - Existence is a predicate. It is an attribute.
Malcolm	Malcolm considered Anselm's argument and concluded he could not support Anselm's first argument because it is not valid. However, Malcolm supported Anselm's second argument. Necessary existence is defined as existence that cannot be brought about or threatened by anything. God's existence us either impossible or necessary. It cannot be impossible since the concept is not self-contradictory. Therefore, God necessarily exists.
Plantinga	Plantinga uses the idea of the possible worlds. Possible worlds is a conception of a logically consistent universe that might have been. The method is used to determine the modality (necessity, impossibility or possibility) of statements. To test for logical impossibility, you need to think of the possible world in which the statement is true. If you can, then the statement is not logically impossible. For a statement to be logically necessary it would be true in all possible worlds. The OA follows: -There are possible worlds,and in one of these there exists a being with maximal greatness and excellence -In any possible world the being (God) has maximal excellence -As our world exists the world is a possible world and therefore, in our world there is a being
Criticisms AO1 and AO2	...
Aquinas	Aquinas rejects that there can be certainty that the human mind has the correct concept of God. He argues God is beyond human understanding therefore, humans cannot prove that God exists from their idea of God. We cannot come to know God as He is beyond human understanding and therefore a priori arguments to prove the existences of God fail as we cannot define God.
Hume	Hume argued two main points: 1. It is not possible to take an idea in one's mind, apply pure logic and reach a conclusion based entirely in the external observable universe. 2. Existence cannot be treated as a predicate which is something to 'have' or 'not to have' Within the first objection Hume is saying that we base our lives around that which we can observe rather than that which we can rationally prove. Hume's second objection challenges the view that existence.He believes to think of God as 'in the mind' and then to think of God as 'in reality ' according to Hume, exactly the same thing.
Kant	Kant's criticism is aimed at Descartes OA as he argues is a quality which you possess. Kant believes when we talk about something we assume that it exists. Therefore, existence is assumed. Although saying something exists does not add any extra information to the claim. A predicate should add to our understanding of an object/person and therefore, existence is not a predicate. Existence is deemed as a synthetic proposition. It is a predicate which is not contained in the statement and more work must be done to it. This works as God cannot be placed in a separate category to everything else. Kant gives a synthetic proposition (maybe or maybe not true) the status of an analytical proposition (something true by definition)
Russell	Russell believed if existence was a predicate you would get a syllogism(deductive argument moving from general to specific). Russell uses the example of Santa: -Men exist in the world -Santa is a man -Therefore, Santa must exist This example shows the misuse of man and existence. Russell explains existence through intention (particular thing-statement or fact) and the extension. The intention of the phrase is a description arrived through labeling and defining something, while extension is totality of the whole thing conceived.
Frege	Frege distinguishes between first and second order predicates. A first predicates tells us about the nature of concepts and apply directly to the object themselves. They provide information about the relation of two concepts. A second order predicate applies only to a first order concept and not to objects themselves. Second order predicates do not apply to objects but tell us about concepts of the first order 'Exist' can only be applied as a second order predicate. Frege concludes existence is not a first order predicate, as it foes not tell us about the nature of something. Existence as a second order predicate does not add to our understanding of the concept. The existence cannot be used as a predicate to prove the existence of God.
Davies	Davies recognises attempts by philosophers who distinguish between existence and necessity but criticises the use of the word 'is'. He says the word is can be used to define something or it can explain that there is actually is something. Davies suggests that the first use says nothing about existence, in that it says nothing about something existent. The second says nothing about existence and it is not defining anything either. Davies believes that the OA may help us to have a definition of God but it does not prove that the being within this definition exists.
Faith and Reason	Faith (confidence or trust in a person or thing) Reason (the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought or of conduct)
Philosophers in agreement with Faith and Reason	...
Davies	Davies believes the OA is valuable as it shows that the belief in God is rational and logical. Many believe the belief is naive and irrational to believe in something you can't see. The OA answers that some consider God more seriously than others.
Kant, Russell and Hume	Kant, Russell and Hume believe the OA is a priori, if not successful it would not provide certain proof of God. The premises are accepted and reasoning is valid then the conclusion logically is true. Certain proof of the existence of God is which wanted to be valuable for faith. However, the premises are in depth due to criticisms
Philosophers who don't agree with Faith and Reason	...
Kierkgaard	Kierkegaard believed all arguments for the existence of God, included the OA, have no value. Either God exists or He does not. If God doesn't exists then it is impossible to invent His existence. Kierkegaard believes to never try to prove that He exists. A person who exists has faith doesn't need to prove existence.
Barth	Barth believes faith is a free gift from God. The OA is not intended to sustain faith or induce faith. However, it is valuable because it brings joy to faith by increasing understanding. It indicates limits of understanding without faith.
Plantinga	Plantinga believes it is impossible to use the OA to prove God exists to those lacking in understanding. He uses the Analogy of Blindness (never been able to understand if no visual reference) to describe his criticism. He believes there is no means of gaining proof. A person without an understanding of God could never accept the OA as a proof of His existence.
Tillich	Tillich believes it is wrong to prove the existence of God, if we so place God on the same level as us. God is above existing so if we ask if God exists, it denies the nature of God.

Next up

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by ChloeEveeeee about 9 years ago