Other versions of the ontological argument Learning objectives

Other versions of the ontological argument Learning objectives To know Descartes’ version of the ontological argument To explain Kant’s challenge To explain the modern versions Homework checker – hand in your essay plans Name three scholars who have amended the ontological argument.

Recap 1. Why does Anselm think the Atheist is a fool? If they accept the idea of God but deny his actual existence, they are involved in a blatant contradiction, a contradiction as obvious as the denial that triangles are three-sided figures. They are denying what is implied in the idea of the greatest conceivable being – that this being must exist

Rene Descartes adds to Anselm’s argument Rationalist philosopher What does this mean? Wanted to prove God’s existence with reason alone ‘I think therefore I am’ He could rationally conceive of his own existence, he could also conceive of the existence of the perfect being

Complete a diagram to demonstrate Descartes’ ideas God is ‘a supremely perfect being’ The notion of a perfect being is innate as we can conceive of a perfect being without being perfect ourselves – the idea must come from somewhere Part of the quality (predicate) of perfection is ‘existence’ just the same as ‘omnipotence, omniscience’ are also predicates of God’s perfection. God cannot lack existence otherwise God would not be perfect. A predicate adds qualities to the subject. Therefore existence adds qualities to the perfection of God. Not a perfect being Thinking of a perfect being

Descartes’ ontological argument Read page 7 of the WJEC booklet Write out Descartes’ argument – key words, premises and examples P 1 The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being I think, therefore I am This means. . .

Descartes Read page 7 of the WJEC booklet Write out Descartes’ argument P 1 The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being

Descartes and the Triangle Descartes illustrates this with an example • A triangle needs three sides • A mountain has a valley • God requires that He exists. Trying to imagine God without the predicate of existence is illogical, like trying to imagine a triangle without three sides. These ‘facts’ do not require empirical proofs in order for them to be truths (that's why it is an ‘a priori’ argument) This makes them analytic statements (meaning is within the statement).

AO 2 Reading review 1. Why did Kant reject the ontological argument? 2. Why did Hume reject the ontological argument? 3. Why did Russell reject the ontological argument

AO 2 Kant 1. If you have a triangle, you have to accept it has three sides. 2. However if you do not have a triangle, you don't have three sides. • 3 sides of a triangle is an analytical statement. • But this says NOTHING about the existence of a triangle. Existence is not a predicate/ quality of a triangle – Money (thalers) example We must establish the existence of something before we can say what it is like Read pages 62 and 63 – write a summary of Kant’s challenges

1. Anselm 2. Gaunilo 3. Descartes, 4. Kant 1 “That than which nothing greater can be conceived” 7 Existence is a predicate of a TTWNGCBK. 2 Perfection must include existence. 8 “On behalf of the fool” 3 God is not in the same category, he is not contingent. God’s existence is necessary. 9 We can not define an idea into existence 4 Does not deny the existence of God but the logic of the argument 10 A real predicate enlarges, expands, adds to a concept. 13 Sought to prove the existence of God by reason alone – the notion of a perfect being is innate 14 God and triangles have an ‘immutable’ nature/essence 11 Overload objections 5 Tried to show that the existence of God could not be denied because to do so would involve adopting a nonsensical (absurd) argument. 6 A triangle must have three sides and three angles that add up to 180 12 “A hundred real thalers (German silver coin) does not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers” 15 The painter analogy Or lottery analogy 16 Existence in re is greater than existence in intellectu 17 “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God” 18 If someone proposes ‘the most perfect island’, since it is perfect it must exists. 22 “Supremely Perfect Being” 23 Existence is not a predicate 24 “God possess all perfections” 19 If you have a triangle then it must have three sides but if you do not have the triangle, you do not have its three sides 20 Even the suggestion that there is no God requires the concept of God. 21 Describing someone as ‘tall’ adds to our understanding of that person – describing someone as ‘existing’ does not. 25 To deny the existence of God is as absurd as saying ‘the existing such and such does not exist”

Research either • Malcolm or • Plantinga Write a summary of their version of the ontological argument

Learning Objectives To know Plantinga and Malcolm’s modern arguments To explain the Modal argument To evaluate the ontological argument

Norman Malcolm: modern supporter of the Ontological • Kant’s criticism failed in one important respect. • You either have a triangle or not • But, by Anselm’s definition: God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be known’ And that God is not just anything like a triangle or Island but THE perfect Necessary Being • You simply cannot have no God • Therefore the situations are not exactly parallel. Why does Malcolm consider Proslogian 3 to be a better argument?

Malcolm God’s existence is either Impossible – If God does not exist - He can’t come into existence as He would have to be caused or happen – this would make God limited. So, God can’t come into existence so if he does not exist his existence is impossible Or, necessary – If he does exist He cannot have come into existence, or cease to exist. So God exists necessarily

Plantinga Key terms – page 10 Modal argument Possible worlds

Plantinga's modal argument Islands are different to God – there could always be a more perfect Island - more dancing, more lush palm trees, twice the size, etc. – idea of a greatest possible island is incoherent. God on the other hand is maximally great – nothing greater is possible.

Plantinga It is possible to imagine our world with a being who has “maximal greatness. ” 1. A being has “maximal greatness” if it exists in every possible world – our world is a possible world 2. Therefore such a being must exist in our world. But Brian Davies adds: such a being is “possible” but not actual.

Challenges to the Ontological Argument Create a mind map or timeline of the challenges to the ontological argument – page 20 Use the video, textbook, booklet, WJEC booklet and the extract from Davis to help you Challenges to the ontological argument It is your responsibility to complete this – detailed and with ‘reasoning and evidence’ Homework Complete the knowledge test and AO 2 essay plan

Success Criteria Include • Gaunilo – Islands … • Aquinas • Hume and Kant - that statements about God are synthetic and that existence is not a predicate • Russell - Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E. g. Men exist Santa Claus is a man Therefore Santa Claus exists • Davis - such a being is “possible” but not actual