ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
SPECIFICATION
Ontological arguments:
St Anselm's ontological argument
Descartes' ontological argument
Gaunilo's 'perfect island' objection
Empiricist objections to a priori arguments for existence
Kant's objection based on existence not being a predicate
Norman Malcolm's ontological argument
OVERVIEW:
Ontology is concerned with the nature of being – the different ways in which things exist.
, Ontological arguments focus on the 'concept' of God and what God would need to be to like to
'be' God.
they are apriori and deductive arguments
They make the simple claim that a correct understanding of God's unique ontology will lead to
the conclusion that such a being must exist.
"If we understand what the word 'God' means, it will be seen to be a contradiction to utter the
words 'God does not exist'; just as it would be a contradiction to speak of a 'male spinster' (Clack
and Clack).
ST ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
* Anselm defines God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” or that God by definition
must be the 'Greatest conceivable being".
-> "greatest" = most perfect
* such a being can be 'conceived of' or 'imagined even by an atheist or 'fool' - such a being might,
quite reasonably, also exist in reality.
* argument based on the principle of “reductio ad absurdum” - it shows that the assumption that
the greatest conceivable being only exists in the mind leads to a contradiction
-> that is to say that a being that can only exist in our mind cannot, by definition, be the greatest
conceivable being; and should therefore be rejected.
===> P1 - Anselm's definition of God seems reasonable and is one that is recognisable as a being that
contains all perfections, the greatest
===> P3 - Anselm's claim that it is greater to exist in reality also appears to be a reasonable one -
imagine two possible worlds (one in which God exists in minds and the other in which God also exists in
reality) - which of these worlds is God greater
-> in order to be the GCB, God must exist in reality as well as have all the perfections
CRITICISMS:
ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUR
- This argument is a conjuring trick - intuitively it doesn't seem possible to prove existence of
something without a posteriori premises
- It is possible to test validity by using same form but different content, leading to a false
conclusion
- Can prove existence of nearly anything using:
P1. X is the greatest possible Y
P2. it is greater to exist both in reality and in the understanding
C. Therefore X (if it is genuinely the greatest Y) must exist in reality
- Suggests this type of ontological argument is invalid
SPECIFICATION
Ontological arguments:
St Anselm's ontological argument
Descartes' ontological argument
Gaunilo's 'perfect island' objection
Empiricist objections to a priori arguments for existence
Kant's objection based on existence not being a predicate
Norman Malcolm's ontological argument
OVERVIEW:
Ontology is concerned with the nature of being – the different ways in which things exist.
, Ontological arguments focus on the 'concept' of God and what God would need to be to like to
'be' God.
they are apriori and deductive arguments
They make the simple claim that a correct understanding of God's unique ontology will lead to
the conclusion that such a being must exist.
"If we understand what the word 'God' means, it will be seen to be a contradiction to utter the
words 'God does not exist'; just as it would be a contradiction to speak of a 'male spinster' (Clack
and Clack).
ST ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
* Anselm defines God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” or that God by definition
must be the 'Greatest conceivable being".
-> "greatest" = most perfect
* such a being can be 'conceived of' or 'imagined even by an atheist or 'fool' - such a being might,
quite reasonably, also exist in reality.
* argument based on the principle of “reductio ad absurdum” - it shows that the assumption that
the greatest conceivable being only exists in the mind leads to a contradiction
-> that is to say that a being that can only exist in our mind cannot, by definition, be the greatest
conceivable being; and should therefore be rejected.
===> P1 - Anselm's definition of God seems reasonable and is one that is recognisable as a being that
contains all perfections, the greatest
===> P3 - Anselm's claim that it is greater to exist in reality also appears to be a reasonable one -
imagine two possible worlds (one in which God exists in minds and the other in which God also exists in
reality) - which of these worlds is God greater
-> in order to be the GCB, God must exist in reality as well as have all the perfections
CRITICISMS:
ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUR
- This argument is a conjuring trick - intuitively it doesn't seem possible to prove existence of
something without a posteriori premises
- It is possible to test validity by using same form but different content, leading to a false
conclusion
- Can prove existence of nearly anything using:
P1. X is the greatest possible Y
P2. it is greater to exist both in reality and in the understanding
C. Therefore X (if it is genuinely the greatest Y) must exist in reality
- Suggests this type of ontological argument is invalid
