Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philosophical Arguments About God
Philosophical Arguments About God
Omniscient, knowing
everything that can be
known.
No Experience
Necessary.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3) I have four apples.
The Ontological Argument
(1) Jim is a bachelor
(2) Jim is unmarried.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3) I have four apples.
Bachelor = Unmarried by
(1) Jim is a bachelor definition.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) I have two apples
(2) I have two additional apples
(3) I have four apples.
2 + 2 = 4 by definition.
f
Bachelor = Unmarried by
(1) Jim is a bachelor definition.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) X is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
(2) Existence in reality is better than existence in the mind.
(3) God exists in reality.
Bachelor = Unmarried by
(1) Jim is a bachelor definition.
A priori
Necessary.
(1) X is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
(2) Existence in reality is better than existence in the mind.
(3) X exists in reality.
The Ontological Argument
St. Anslem Central to Anselms
The argument for the argument is a distinction
existence of God is one that between two kinds of
doesnt depend on premises existence:
that are grounded in
experience. 1. For a thing to exist in
reality is for it to be part of
reality, to really exist.
2. For a thing to exist in
understanding is for
someone to have an idea
(concept, thought) of that
thing. (like saying you
have something on your
mind.)
he knew Gods existence
by faith (faith as
knowledge)
Argument outline
Suppose you could conceive of Gods
nonexistence
Then you could think of something greater
than God-- something just like God, but
existing
God is a being than which none greater
can be conceived.
But nothing can be conceived as greater
than God
So, Gods nonexistence is inconceivable!
Another way to think of it...
Anselm in effect defines God as a perfect being
A perfect being must have all perfections omnipotence,
omniscience, omnibenevolence...
Existence is a perfection (or so Anselm seems to say)
Therefore, God must have existence God must exist
To deny this is self-contradictory
It would be like saying: "Triangles have three sides by
definition, but there is a triangle with only two sides"
The form of the argument
Note that Anselm's argument is a reductio
ad absurdum
It offers a proof that God exists by
Assuming that God doesn't exist, and
Arguing that this leads to an absurdity
This would mean: we must reject the
assumption that God doesn't exist.
Objections
There are various classic objections to the
classic argument
One tries to show that the argument is
invalid
that if we reason the same way in other
cases, we get false conclusions
Another tries to show that the argument is
based on a confusion about the notion of
existence
Gaunilo, a monk who was a contemporary of St. Anselm, offered an influential
reply to the ontological argument.
Gaunilos objection
We could define the perfect island as the island than which
none greater can be conceived. Then, by the same
reasoning, we could prove the existence (in reality) of
such an island.
But this is absurd. So there must be some fault in Anselms
reasoning. (Note, this doesnt show exactly what the fault is,
only that there must be one.)
A possible reply: the perfect island, unlike God, cant be
conceived to exist in reality. For any island we think of, we
can think of a greater island. The perfect island is like the
greatest number.
Is God really different in this respect? Perhaps the idea that
God is an infinite being is relevant here.
Objection 2- Immanuel Kant
claims that existence is not a predicate.
(A predicate is a word or phrase whose function is to
attribute a property to things, e.g. the predicate red
attributes the property of redness.)
When we say that a thing exists, claims Kant, we do not
attribute to it a new property, in addition its other properties.
According to Anselm, if God didnt exist (in reality), then he
would lack a property, existence, that contributes to
greatness.
Is she wasting her time with all this ballyhoo about some
god, the creator of all things?
Should she should snap herself out of her disbelief and
realize that there is a god who is ultimately good, all
powerful, and all knowing?
Or should she just not worry about it, knowing that there is
no way to prove either case and just roll the dice and wait
for the outcome when she dies. (Is this really just a cop-
out?)