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 Malcolm’s modern version Homework checker – Descartes notes

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

Homework sheet Descartes’ ontological argument Write out Descartes’ argument – key words, premises and examples I think, therefore I am This means. . .

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 think of his own existence and this was good evidence of his existence. He could also think of the existence of the supremely 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 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).

Descartes overview Descartes distinguished between a thing’s essence and its _____. He argued it was possible to determine what the essential _____ of something was (its essence) independently of knowing whether it existed. He used the illustration of a _____ whose essence was three ____ that added up to 180 degrees. The idea of the triangle could not be separated from the idea of the three angles. However that does not demand that triangles actually ____. However, as Descartes could conceive of his own existence, he could also conceive of the existence of a perfect being. When he considered the idea of a _____ being, he argued that existence was an aspect of ____. In other words, the idea of a supremely perfect being was the unique case where existence was part of its ____, and therefore demanded that such a being existed. 1. I _______ 2. In my mind I have the _____ of a supremely perfect being 2. Existence is a perfection, so existence is part of its essence 4. A supremely perfect being must exist in order to be supremely perfect 5. ______, a supremely perfect being exists Triangle, exist, supremely perfect, nature, essence, existence, angles, concept, perfection, exist, Therefore

Descartes overview Descartes distinguished between a thing’s essence and its existence. He argued it was possible to determine what the essential nature of something was (its essence) independently of knowing whether it existed. He used the illustration of a triangle whose essence was three angles that added up to 180 degrees. The idea of the triangle could not be separated from the idea of the three angles. However that does not demand that triangles actually exist. However, as Descartes could conceive of his own existence, he could also conceive of the existence of a perfect being. When he considered the idea of a supremely perfect being, he argued that existence was an aspect of perfection. In other words, the idea of a supremely perfect being was the unique case where existence was part of its essence, and therefore demanded that such a being existed. 1. I exist 2. In my mind I have the concept of a supremely perfect being 3. Existence is a perfection, so existence is part of its essence 4. A supremely perfect being must exist in order to be supremely perfect 5. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists

Kant challenged Descartes view that God’s existence was a necessary predicate. He said: • ‘Existence is not a real predicate. ’ It does not add anything to the concept. • More recently, a similar criticism centres around first and second order predicates. The former tell us about the nature of something eg. ‘the cat is black’. The latter tell us about concepts e. g. ‘there are lots of cats’. It is argued that Anselm and Descartes wrongly defined existence as a first order predicate when it really is a second-order concept. Existence is the property of a concept not of an object. Hence the affirmation of existence is nothing more than the denial of the number zero. Existence is not something that can be added to or subtracted from something. We do not add anything when we declare that it ‘is’. In the sentence ‘God exists’, the subject is really ‘the concept of God’ and the predicate ‘exists’ means that ‘the concept of God applies to something. ’ Existence is not a property.

Kant’s money example That which exists in reality contains no more than that which exists in the imagination. Thalers example 100 real thalers (old German coins) does not contain one coin more than 100 thalers in the mind. In other words ‘exists in reality’ is not serving the function that Anselm claims it is. Reality and the mind give the same result.

Another criticism by Kant attacked Descartes form of the ontological argument. It concerned the rejection of both subject and predicate: If you have a triangle, then you must have three angles. But there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle with its three angles. If you do not have a triangle, then you don’t have three angles. Likewise, if there is no God, then there is no being with necessary existence. If God exists he will have necessary existence, but it is not a contradiction to say that such a concept does not have an actuality.

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. We must establish the existence of something before we can say what it is like

Replies to Kant’s criticism 1. Necessary existence is a property of an inability to be generated or made corrupt (not contingent) 2. Stephen Davis argued that existence is a great making quality since the existence of money in reality rather than just the concept of money in my mind, permits me to purchase real items in the real world.

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”

Learning Objectives To know Malcolm’s modern arguments 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 or as Malcolm defines him an ‘unlimited 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’s argument can be presented like this: 1. If God does not exist today, then He never can and never will – His existence must be impossible. 2. If God does exist, He must exist necessarily. 3. God’s existence is therefore either impossible or necessary. 4. God’s existence is not impossible. It is not logically contradictory to have the concept of a God who exists. 5. Therefore, given that His existence is not impossible, it must be necessary – so God exists necessarily. Paired Work Discuss with your partner some possible objections to Malcolm’s argument. Write these up as short paragraphs, explaining why these challenge Malcolm’s 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

1 E Norman Malcolm - overview Norman Malcolm (1911 -1990) developed ____ second form. He rejected Anselm’s ______ form since it implied that ______ was a property and Malcolm did not think existence was a property (similar view to ____ ). However, the second form involved ______ existence and Malcolm did regard this as a property and so not open to Kant’s criticisms. Malcolm avoids the language of ______ that Anselm used, and instead defines God as “an ______ being”. One characteristic of an unlimited being would be necessary existence since an unlimited being cannot be _____ on anything – either for coming into existence or ceasing to exist. Hence God’s existence is either ______ (since he could not be brought into existence by anything greater than himself) or God is necessary (since he cannot be brought into existence as he must always have existed). But God’s existence cannot be impossible since the only thing to make it impossible would be in the notion was logically ______ , which it is not. Therefore God must be necessary and so must _____. Kant, impossible, exist, necessary, first, Anselm’s, existence, greatness, contradictory, dependent, unlimited,

Norman Malcolm - overview Norman Malcolm (1911 -1990) developed Anselm’s second form. He rejected Anselm’s first form since it implied that existence was a property and Malcolm did not think existence was a property (similar view to Kant). However, the second form involved necessary existence and Malcolm did regard this as a property and so not open to Kant’s criticisms. Malcolm avoids the language of greatness that Anselm used, and instead defines God as “an unlimited being”. One characteristic of an unlimited being would be necessary existence since an unlimited being cannot be dependent on anything – either for coming into existence or ceasing to exist. Hence God’s existence is either impossible (since he could not be brought into existence by anything greater than himself) or God is necessary (since he cannot be brought into existence as he must always have existed). But God’s existence cannot be impossible since the only thing to make it impossible would be in the notion was logically contradictory, which it is not. Therefore God must be necessary and so must exist.

Challenges to the Ontological Argument Create a mind map or timeline of the challenges to the ontological argument – page 21 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

AO 2 Challenges Summary on page 21 • Russell - Existence 1. Why did Kant reject the is not a predicate – ontological argument? If if it was then: E. g. not completed Men exist 2. Why did Hume reject the ontological argument? Santa Claus is a man 3. Why did Aquinas reject the ontological argument? Therefore Santa Claus exists 4. Why did Davies reject the ontological argument? 5. Why did Russell reject the ontological argument?

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