Ontological Argument This argument is a priori but

Ontological Argument

This argument is a priori but why?

Why is it a priori? The ontological argument is based entirely upon logic and reason and doesn’t really try to give a posteriori evidence to back it up. Anselm would claim the statement ‘God exists’ makes perfect sense in the same way that saying a triangle has three sides also makes perfect sense.

Which of these six statements is a priori? 2+2=4

Humes’ Fork According to Hume which of these is necessarily true? 2+2=4

Humes’ Fork According to Hume which of these is contingently true? 2+2=4

Humes’ Fork According to Hume which of these is analytic? 2+2=4

Humes’ Fork According to Hume which of these is synthetic? 2+2=4

Empiricist or Rationalist? ? ? Remember, Empiricism is based upon knowledge we get through the senses and rationalism is based on logic and reason using the brain.

Is the Cosmological Argument Empiricist or Rationalist? ? ? Teleological Cosmological Ontological

A priori or a posteriori? Teleological is a posteriori as it is based on the complexity of life. We know there is complexity because we can observe this! Where does this complexity come from – well a designer must exist and this designer is God. Cosmological is a posteriori as it is based on causation and the beginning of the Universe. We know that all contingent things need a beginning as we can observe this! There must be something that is not contingent – a necessary being and this must be God.

Teleological Argument – complexity of a forest?

Teleological – complexity of life?

Cosmological – chains of cause and effect?

Ontological arguments do not base themselves on knowledge through the senses – they are a priori, based on logic and reason alone! 2 + 2 = 4 Triangle has 3 sides The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line All bachelors are unmarried males Logic and reason tell us these things are true!

Anselm’s Ontological Argument Anselm begins by saying that God can be defined as a perfect being and so must exist but how does he justify this claim?

Anselm starts by saying that God is the greatest conceivable being and that even a fool would agree with this! It would seem that he has a point as it is difficult to imagine a being greater than an all-powerful God?

Ontological – we can all imagine a greatest being God God God

So, we can all imagine the concept of God in our minds!

So, God exists in the imagination!

Anselm then asks whether it is better to exist or not to exist? He concludes existence is better than non-existence. Which of the following would Anselm say was better? Hmm? ?

Is it better to exist or not to exist?

So, existence in reality is greater than existence in the imagination.

If God exists in the imagination, then to exist in the imagination and in reality would be greater.

Therefore, God exists

Any problems with this? Well, quite a few actually!

Gaunilo's reductio ad absurdum

Gaunilo's reductio ad absurdum Defining things into existence Uses reductio ad absurdum Not rational

Response to Gaunilo – islands can come into existence and go out of existence and we could never agree on an idea of a perfect island. God is a special case as God is a necessary being and not like any other thing we can imagine.

Response to Gaunilo – things are defined into existence all the time – mathematical concepts and even artistic works are all ‘defined into existence’.

Aquinas’ criticism of Anselm – we all have different ideas of what God is like so God cannot be a universal concept? We can all imagine God

Response to Aquinas – the argument does not try to tell us what God is like, only that as a perfect being, God must exist.

Hume – God exists is not a synthetic proposition and so cannot be proved true or false. As such it is not worthy of any study and should be ‘cast unto the flames’.

Response to Hume – ontological arguments are a priori and do not try to give empirical evidence – they are based on reason alone!

Kant – existence is not a predicate – it cannot tell us that God exists because there is nothing in the term ‘God exists’ that shows this must be true. The term ‘black cat’ tells us something about the cat i. e. that it is black! The predicate ‘black’ is a defining term of the cat. ‘God exists’ contains no such predicate and so cannot tell us about God!

Response to Kant – ‘I exist’ contains no predicate but the fact remains that I do exist

Pascal worried about a false dilemma! He thinks that forcing people to believe/not believe is unconvincing either way.

Pascal thought the smart thing to do was to believe in God as the odds favoured this position!