Explore the weaknesses of the ontological argument. (8 marks)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Ontological Argument
Advertisements

The ontological argument is based entirely upon logic and reason and doesn’t really try to give a posteriori evidence to back it up. Anselm would claim.
The ontological argument
Ontological Argument for God Introduction to Philosophy Jason M. Chang.
The Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument Define the terms: Ontology, Analytic, Synthetic, God. Recall Psalm 14:1. Define God in Anselm’s terms. Summarise Anselm’s Ontological.
Malcolm’s ontological argument Michael Lacewing
Epistemology Revision How does indirect realism lead to scepticism about the nature of the external world?
Phil 1000 Bradley Monton Class 2 The Cosmological Argument.
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.
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.
Proof and Probability (can be applied to arguments for the existence of God)
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.
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 Ontological argument 2 This time it’s critical!
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
The Ontological Argument
The ontological argument
Other versions of the ontological argument
Philosophy MAP 2 and new topic The Idea of God
Unit 2: Arguments relating to the existence of God.
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
AO1 Comparison questions
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
Descartes’ ontological argument
Other versions of the ontological argument
Norman Malcolm American philosopher. 11 June 1911 – 4 August 1990.
The Ontological Argument: An Introduction
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
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
In pairs, write a list of all the reasons people believe in God.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.
Explore key ideas in the ontological argument. (8 marks)
Explore the use of a’priori reasoning in 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.
A Priori Arguments for God’s Existence
Clarify and explain the key ideas. A’priori Deductive
Clarify and explain the key ideas. A’priori Deductive
IN SUPPORT OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Clarify the key ideas Logic Definition Premises Outline opinion Flawed
Presentation transcript:

Explore the weaknesses of the ontological argument. (8 marks) Definition of God proves that he exists Kant 1 – inseparable predicates Gaunilo – perfect island Kant 2 – existence is not a predicate Moore – tame tigers

Explore the weaknesses of the ontological argument. (8 marks) The ontological argument takes an a priori approach, this is seeking to prove the existence of God based on logic and reason rather than empirical evidence. The argument was developed by Anselm in 1078 who believed that the definition of God as ‘That which nothing greater can be conceived’ proved analytically that God existed. One weakness of the argument is its assumption that an inseparable predicate is enough to prove existence. This was explained by Kant who argued that having an inseparable predicate does not automatically prove that something exists, it only tells us what it would be like if it did, therefore Kant believes we should understand this inseparable predict of necessary existence as ‘if God did exist, he would do so necessarily, and no non-necessarily existing being could be God’. Gaunilo shared similar objections about defining something into existence. Gaunilo explained this by comparing Anselm’s idea of God as perfect and therefore existing to that of a ‘perfect island’; his point being that just because you can define a perfect island, it does not mean it actually exists, you would still need some other proof. Part of Anselm’s first premise was the assumption that necessary existence was a predicate of being God, for the argument to succeed this has to be analytically true. Kant believed that it could not possibly be true as existence is not even a real predicate, ‘Existence is clearly not a real predicate’. The function of a predicate is to develop our understanding of something, to give us more information about something and existence fails to do this. This point was echoed by Moore who said that whilst the statement ‘Some tame tigers do not growl’ gives us information about the temperament of the tigers, the statement ‘Some tame tigers do not exist’ does not enable us to learn anything about the animals.