The Ontological argument 2 This time it’s critical!

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Ontological Argument
Advertisements

Philosophy and the proof of God's existence
The Ontological Argument. Anselm’s Argument So the fool has to agree that the concept of something than which nothing greater can be thought exists in.
The ontological argument
Ontological Argument for God Introduction to Philosophy Jason M. Chang.
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Malcolm’s ontological argument Michael Lacewing
Epistemology Revision How does indirect realism lead to scepticism about the nature of the external world?
Is Religion Reasonable? Faith Seeking Understanding The ontological argument The cosmological argument The teleological argument (from design)
Is Belief in God Reasonable? Faith Seeking Understanding A posteriori arguments (based on experience): The teleological argument (from design) The cosmological.
Can we prove that God Exists? Philosophers through the centuries have tried to prove whether God exists.
Criticisms of the Ontological Argument
Epistemology Revision
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. A BASIC INTRODUCTION. THIS MUST BE USED AS A STARTING POINT : OTHER SHEETS, TEXT BOOK AND INFORMATION WILL BE NEEDED TO HAVE.
 Born to a noble family in Italy  As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
Ontological Argument. Teleological argument depends upon evidence about the nature of the world and the organisms and objects in it. Cosmological argument.
PHIL/RS 335 God’s Existence Pt. 1: The Ontological Argument.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 5 The Ontological Argument By David Kelsey.
A Mickey Mouse Guide to the Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Anselm’s Ontological Argument STARTER TASK: ‘Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God”’ Psalm 14:1 Copy this statement down. What do you think it is.
Chapter 1: Religion Proving God: The Ontological Argument Introducing Philosophy, 10th edition Robert C. Solomon, Kathleen Higgins, and Clancy Martin.
WEEK 3: Metaphysics Natural Theology – Anselm’s Ontological Argument.
The Ontological Argument
The essence of material things and the ontological argument.
Ontological Argument (Ontological is from the Greek word for being, named by Kant) Learning Objectives To know the specification content To know the meaning.
The Mickey Mouse Guide to the Ontological Argument
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1
Gaunilo’s response the stage one of Anselm’s argument
OA: Faith and Reason What difference does the argument make
Frege: Kaiser’s chariot is drawn by four horses
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument
Kant recap Kant’s 1st point Kant’s 3rd point
The ontological argument
Other versions of the ontological argument
Philosophy MAP 2 and new topic The Idea of God
Challenges to the OAs The different versions of OA are challenged by:
A Mickey Mouse Guide to the Ontological Argument
Philosophy of Religion AO2 1 d, e and f evaluation questions
Kant’s criticisms of the Ontological Argument
Criticisms of the Ontological Argument
The ontological argument: an a-priori argument (ie, deductive rather than inductive) Anselm ‘God’ is that being than which nothing greater can be conceived’;
O.A. so far.. Anselm – from faith, the fool, 2 part argument
Other versions of the ontological argument
The Ontological Argument Ontological
Philosophy of Religion AO2 1 d, e and f evaluation questions
The Ontological argument 2
The Ontological Argument: St. Anselm’s First Argument
Draw the most perfect holiday Island you can imagine...
Philosophy of Religion AO2 1 d, e and f evaluation questions
Kant’s objection to ontological arguments
A: What would Anselm say. B: What would Gaunilo say
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Describe this object: Does it help describe it further by saying it exists?
The Big Picture Deductive arguments - origins of the ontological argument Deductive proofs; the concept of ‘a priori’. St Anselm - God as the greatest.
Other versions of the ontological argument
The Ontological Argument
What makes these things different?
The Ontological Argument
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Clarify and explain the key ideas. A’priori Deductive
Clarify and explain the key ideas. A’priori Deductive
Ontological Argument – challenges against
IN SUPPORT OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Explore the weaknesses of the ontological argument. (8 marks)
Clarify the key ideas Logic Definition Premises Outline opinion Flawed
Presentation transcript:

The Ontological argument 2 This time it’s critical!

Meet the commentators  Gaunilo  Anselm  Immanuel Kant  Rene Descartes  Bertrand Russell  Brian Davies

Gaunilo V Anselm Round 1

The Perfect Island ‘Inestimable wealth’ ‘Abundant delicacies’ ‘all manner of riches’ ‘uninhabited’ Perfect!

The Perfect Island  The KEY issue: I do not deny that such an island could exist… …I simply will not agree that it does, until I have been shown PROOF! Gaunilo’s says: just because he can CONCEIVE of such a place, that does not actually mean such a place exists! “Anselm is trying to move from a definition of God to the suggestion of God’s existence. This is not a valid move.” Gaunilo

So this disproves the argument?  Well no, not really!  Anselm never compares things of a like kind. ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’  Whereas, Gaunilo is comparing islands  Islands have no intrinsic maximum Gaunilo’s objections do not successfully refute Anselm

Kant V Descartes Round 2

Triangular logic?  Kant objected to Descartes’ claim that denying God’s existence was the same as trying to deny triangles have three sides, which is contradictory.  Kant states that if you dismiss both the three sides (predicate) and that of the triangle itself (subject) then you are left with no contradiction. So: If you say God does not exist and then cease to imagine the concept of God, there is no contradiction. Therefore it can be logical to say ‘God does not exist.’ Kant successfully refutes Descartes’ idea of existence as a predicate. In order to deal with Anselm he serves up another argument…

Kant V Anselm Round 3

‘existence is not a predicate’  Kant states that’s saying X exists tells us nothing about X  Whereas, ‘X is female, or tall’ does  A predicate must give info about X  Saying ‘X is’ does not  Existence does not add anything to the concept (idea of) X

Kant  If X exists tells us about a property that X has, then X does not exist denies that it has this property (or affirms that it lacks it).  Paradox! Because ‘X exists’ does not tell us anything, Kant is saying it is meaningless and is the same as saying X does not exist

Bertrand Russell  Claims Anselm uses the word ‘exist’ incorrectly.  Existence cannot be a predicate.  If it were, we could argue: Men exist. Santa Claus is a man. Therefore, Santa Claus exists. This is a syllogism.

Brian Davies V the Ontological argument Round 4

Brian Davies  ‘A pixie is a little man with pointed ears. Therefore there actually exists a pixie.’  ‘is’ is used in two different ways  1) To define something: ‘a queen is a female monarch’  2) To explain there actually is something: ‘there is such a thing as a vampire’. Davies argues that is can be used to define the concept of God, as in 1), but not as in 2) which pre-supposes existence for no logical reason.

The argument against Plantinga’s ‘Possible worlds’ idea. Round 5

Plantinga’s possible worlds  Is Plantinga’s claim coherent?  Even if we accept a being with ‘maximal greatness’ is possible, and therefore it is possible that such a being exists in our world…  …it does not follow that such a being actually exists!  It is possible, but not actual.

TASK: In your groups you must prepare to present your case. ‘This house believes the Ontological argument cannot prove the existence of God.’ 2 groups will speak for the motion, 2 groups against. Everybody in your group must contribute. Elect a scribe and 2 spokespeople.

Debate ‘This house believes the Ontological argument cannot prove the existence of God.’ Order of speaking: 1) For the argument 2) Against the argument 3) Reply for the argument 4) Reply against the argument

Russell’s idea  To label & define something is to provide an intention An animal with four legs & udders Intention to describe a cow.  To say the cow exists is to provide an extension to my intention.  We see cows in field, so we accept they exist.

Russell cont.  ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ is simply the totality of everything the human mind can conceive. That is the intention of the phrase.  Extension? If any idea can be said to exist, then ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ must exist as it is the totality of all ideas.