Chapter 6 Ontological arguments for Gods existence Ontological

  • Slides: 10
Download presentation
Chapter 6: Ontological arguments for God’s existence:

Chapter 6: Ontological arguments for God’s existence:

Ontological argument Ø Derived from the Greek terms ontos (being) and logos(reason or rational

Ontological argument Ø Derived from the Greek terms ontos (being) and logos(reason or rational account) Ø First developed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury, the argument takes a variety of forms Ø The common theme among them is that they begin a priori – proceeding from the mere concept of God – and conclude that God must exist

Anselm’s ontological argument 1. Everyone is able to understand by the term “God” a

Anselm’s ontological argument 1. Everyone is able to understand by the term “God” a being than which none greater can be conceived 2. So, a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the mind (the understanding) when one hears about such a being 3. We can conceive of a being than which none greater can be conceived which exists both in the mind and in reality

Anselm’s argument continued 4. To exist in reality is better than to exist in

Anselm’s argument continued 4. To exist in reality is better than to exist in the mind alone 5. If, therefore, a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the mind alone and not in reality, it is not a being than which none greater can be conceived 6. Therefore, a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in reality.

Guanilo’s objection 1. Everyone is able to understand by the term “Perfect 2. 3.

Guanilo’s objection 1. Everyone is able to understand by the term “Perfect 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Island” the greatest possible island(GPI). So, a GPI exists in the mind We can conceive of a GPI that exists in the mind and reality Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone If a GPI exists in the mind alone, then it is not the GPI Thus, a GPI exists in reality But since a GPI does not exist in reality, the argument structure (which Anselm also utilizes) must be flawed

Kant’s objection Ø Existence is not a predicate such that it is a property

Kant’s objection Ø Existence is not a predicate such that it is a property which can be affirmed of a thing Ø Existence does not add to the concept of a thing; rather, existence is the instantiation of a thing Ø The example of a black, existing cat

Plantinga’s modal argument 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It is possible that a being

Plantinga’s modal argument 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. It is possible that a being exists which is maximally great (a being we can call God) So, there is a possible world in which a maximally great being exists A maximally great being is necessarily maximally excellent in every possible world(by definition) Since a maximally great being is necessarily maximally excellent in every possible world, that being is necessarily maximally excellent in the actual world Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world

Objections Ø God’s existence is a logical or metaphysical impossibility Ø Possible worlds and

Objections Ø God’s existence is a logical or metaphysical impossibility Ø Possible worlds and the semantics they employ are problematic Ø Fairies, ghosts, gremlins and unicorns can be made “plausible” through the same argumentation (similar to “Perfect Island”)

Martin’s special fairy argument 1. It is possible that a special fairy exists 2.

Martin’s special fairy argument 1. It is possible that a special fairy exists 2. So, there is a possible world in which a special fairy exists 3. A special fairy is necessarily a tiny woodland creature with magical powers in every possible world 4. Since a special fairy is necessarily a tiny woodland creature with magical powers in every possible world, that fairy is necessarily a tiny woodland creature with magical powers in the actual world 5. Therefore, a special fairy exists in the actual world

Questions for discussion Ø Is it greater to exist than to not exist, as

Questions for discussion Ø Is it greater to exist than to not exist, as Anselm claimed? How does your answer affect Anselm’s argument? Ø Can you conceive of God’s non-existence? If so, what follows from this regarding the ontological argument? Ø How does the ontological argument differ from other classic arguments for the existence of God?