Fichas
Ontological Argument
Fichas del conjunto (75)
- 1What is the basics of the ontological argument?Ontological argument is concerned with the very being of God. It is deductive, analytic and a priori.
- 2What does deductive mean (example) ?Deductive means that if the premises are true, then it provides valid proof for the conclusion.
E.g. All labradors are dogs, Jerry is a labrador, so Jerry is a dog. - 3What does analytic mean? (example)It is based on definitions, e.g. a triangle has 3 sides.
- 4What does a priori mean? (example)Before the fact. This means that there is no evidence or experience needed to back it up, the statement is simply true. E.g. "all bachelors are unmarried" is true by definition.
- 5What are the traditional versions of the Ontological Argument?Anselm's version and Descartes' version (however, always discuss Descartes in modern versions as well)
- 6What reasoning does Anselm use in his Ontological Argument?He uses proof by contradiction, meaning he lays out points and attempts to state that if you don't use this logic it will lead to a contradiction.
- 7What forms the basis of Anselm's Ontological Argument?"aliquid quo nihil maius possibit" - this roughly translates late, to God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. This is A PRIORI (KEY!!!!!) knowledge to Anselm.
- 8What is Anselm's first form simplified?1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. Things exist in either the mind or the mind and reality.
3. It is better to exist in the mind and reality, than the mind alone. - 9What example does Anselm use to help illustrate his second premise?PAINTER EXAMPLE: before a painter paints a picture, he imagines it in his mind, and so the painting exists in his understanding. Once the defendant has painted the picture it exists in both his mind and reality.
- 10What conclusion does Anselm draw from the first form?If God existed in the mind alone, then something greater can be conceived, namely a super God that exists in the mind and reality. However, this would contradict premise 1 (note the use of proof by contradiction). So, God must exist in the mind and reality.
- 11What was the criticism of the first form laid out by Gaulino?Gaulino argues that Anselm makes an illegitimate leap between saying God exists in the mind to God exists in reality. He uses reductio ad absurdum (attempting to render an argument to absurdity by proving it produces absurd results) to help prove this.
- 12What example does Gaulino use to illustrate this?He uses the example of a "perfect island". Using Anselm's logic, as we can think of a perfect island and describe it, it must exist in reality. However, this would mean that we can define things into existence. However, it is obvious we can't and so we can't define God into existence either.
- 13What is Anselm's 2nd form (simplified)?This can be seen as a rebuttal to Gaulino's criticism as Anselm is arguing that the first form only applies to things that are necessary.
1. God is TTWNGCBC.
2. Things either exist contingently or necessarily.
3. It is better to exist necessarily. - 14What does contingent and necessary mean, with examples?CONTINGENT: their existence relies on something else and they will live and die, e.g. people or trees.
NECESSARY: they cannot not exist. - 15What is the conclusion Anselm draws from his second form?If God existed contingently, then something greater can be conceived, namely a super God that exists necessarily. As this contradicts premise 1, God must exist contingently.
- 16What is the basis of Descartes ontological argument?It is based off his two key philosophies: "the theory of innate ideas" and "the doctrine of clear and distinct ideas"
It begins with the idea that Descartes had a clear definition of God in his mind, that he is supremely perfect. (A PRIORI!) - 17What is the quote to back up the idea Descartes had about God?"I...find the idea of God in me, that is to say, the idea of a supremely perfect being."
- 18What is the simplified version of Descartes argument?1. God is a supremely perfect being.
2. Existence is one of God's many perfections.
3. Existence is a predicate of God. - 19What does Descartes mean when he refers to God as "supremely perfect"?He means that, to him, God lacks nothing. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. This is A PRIORI knowledge to Descartes.
- 20What example does Descartes use to express how God is "supremely perfect"?He compares it to geometry as he believed that "the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number."
So, just like a triangle has 3 sides by definition, God is supremely perfect by definition. - 21What does cogito erg sum mean?"to put knowledge of perfection into imperfect brains". Descartes believed that we have innate knowledge of God (including necessity), but as we are imperfect we couldn't have gained it ourselves. God must have put it in us, and so he exists.
- 22What is a predicate?Something that gives information about the subject of the sentence.
- 23Expand on Descartes final premise: "Existence is a predicate of God."For Descartes, he cannot conceive God without perfection. Just like it is impossible for mountains without valleys, it is also impossible for God not to have existence. As he is supremely perfect he must have existence and exist in reality.
This is because "necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being" - 24What are the modern versions of the Ontological Argument?Malcolm and Plantinga.
- 25What is the basis of Malcolm's ontological argument?He builds off Anselm's second form, meaning that he also believes that God is TTWNGCBC. Because of this, he believes that God can't come into existence, because something greater can be conceived.
- 26What are the premises for Malcolm's argument?1. God's existence is either impossible or necessary.
2. God's existence is not impossible as it is not self-contradictory.
3. God must necessarily exist. - 27Why is God's existence either impossible or necessary?If God exists and can't come into existence, then his existence must be necessary.
If God doesn't exist and can't come into existence, then his existence is impossible. - 28What logic does Plantinga use in his Ontological Argument?Modal Logic: this meaning that he believes in many worlds with multiple differences.
- 29What is the basis of Plantinga's argument?That there is a being with maximum greatness that exists in every possible world.
- 30What are the simplified premises to Plantinga's argument?1. There is a possible world with a being of maximal greatness.
2. A being has maximal greatness only if it exists in every possible world (doesn't have to be God.)
3. A maximally great being has maximum excellence.
4. If this being is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect and maximally great then he must exist in our world. - 31What was Plantinga criticised for?Plantinga didn't account for the idea of the possible existence of a being in one world that is greater than the maximal being.
- 32What does Plantinga introduce in order to refute this claim?He introduces the idea of maximal excellence. This entails omnipotent, omniscience and moral perfection. So, maximum greatness now entails maximal excellence.
- 33Who are the key philosophers who criticised the Ontological Argument?1. Hume
2. Aquinas
3. Kant
4. Frege
5. Russell
6. Davies - 34What are the three types of criticism and who is involved with them?1. Based on the definition of God - AQUINAS and HUME.
2. Based on the use of existence as a predicate - KANT and RUSSELL and FREGE
3. Based of the possibility of deriving existence claims from definition - DAVIES. - 35How did David Hume criticise the Ontological Argument?Believes that the fundamentals of the Ontological Argument are flawed. As he criticises the use of airport knowledge.
- 36What is the issue with a priori knowledge that Hume highlights?It can be seen as fallible due to the lack of empirical evidence to support the claims and that one small idea can cause the entire argument to fall apart.
- 37What did Hume believed should be used instead of a priori knowledge and why?He believed that we should use empirical evidence, because there is no such thing as necessary existence because of a lack of a empirical evidence, so cannot prove the existence of God.
- 38How did Aquinas criticise the Ontological Argument?Even theists, e.g. Aquinas, pick up on the fact that a priori knowledge is too weak and so a posteriori knowledge should be used instead when trying to prove God's existence as it is more reliable.
- 39How could we evaluate Aquinas' Ontological Argument?By saying that whether he believed what he said or not was questionable as he may have simply been trying to promote the Cosmological Argument which was based off of a posteriori knowledge.
- 40How could we group together and conclude both Hume and Aquinas points?We could simply say, that many theologians, even thesis, have seen the flaws of the fundamentals within the Ontological Argument making it weak, etc...
- 41What does Immanuel Kant believe is flawed about the Ontological Argument?The idea that existence is a predicate of God.
- 42What does Kant say about the use of existence as a predicate of God?He says that when people say "God exists" they are not saying that there is a God and possesses existence. Just when people say that God doesn't exist, they are not saying that there is a God but he lacks existence, as that would be a contradiction.
- 43How can we conclude this point?So, when claiming that God exists the word "exists" can't be a predicate because it tells us nothing about what God is, has or does and it isn't something one can possess or lack.
- 44How does Kant criticise Descartes Ontological Argument?He agrees with Descartes that if you have a triangle, you ahem to accept that there is three sides. But, he believes that you could completely disregard the triangle and then you wouldn't have the three sides either.
- 45How does this relate to God?Kant believes that if you believe in God, it is logical to accept that he is necessary, however you don't have to believe that there is a God.
- 46What is Frege's criticism of the Ontological Argument?Criticises the use of existence as a predicate of God through first and second order predicates.
- 47What are first order predicates?First order predicates tells you something about the thing, e.g. "I have red apples"
- 48What are second order predicates?Tells you something about the concept of the thing, e.g. "I have two apples". Is saying that 2 objects fall under the concept of "my apples".
- 49How does this relate to God?When we say that someone exists, we are merely assigning a number to exist. So when we say "God exists" we are actually saying that there is one object that falls under the concept of God. So, existence is only a second order predicate not first and so tells us nothing about God.
- 50How does Russell criticise the Ontological Argument?Claims that the use of the word "exist", within the Ontological Argument is incorrect as existence cannot be a predicate.
- 51What example does he use to show this?1. Men exist in the world.
2. Santa Claus is man.
3. Therefore, Santa Claus exists. - 52How does Brain Davies criticise the Ontological Argument?By claiming that the word "is" is used wrong.
- 53What are the two things that the word "is" can mean?1. It can define something, e.g. "The Queen IS a female monarch."
2. It can explain that there actually "is" something, e.g. there is such thing as a vampire. - 54What is the problem with the first meaning of "is"?It is merely explaining to us what the word Queen means, but says nothing about the existence of a Queen.
- 55What is the problem with the second meaning?It is not defining anything nor saying anything about its existence, it is merely supposing its existence.
- 56How do we conclude Davies' point?Davies believed that the Ontological Argument mat define God, but does not prove that God exists.
- 57What is the definition of faith?A belief in something or somebody, with an attitude of trust and belief in unproved assertions based around a religion.
- 58What is the big question regarding the relationship between faith and reason?Is faith grounded in reason or is reason governed by faith?
- 59What does Anselm believes about faith and reason?That they should be used in coincidence in order to understand God better.
- 60Why should they be used that way?Because using reason alone results in error and so, must be supported by faith.
- 61What quote by Anselm helps to support this?"I understand not so I believe, I believe to understand."
- 62What is Anselm saying in this quote?That we should start with faith, but reason helps to accompany the understanding.
- 63Why must we start with faith?We must have faith in order to accept Anselm's first premise (God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived). As atheists or agnostics may not have this idea of God as so due to the deductive nature of the argument, the whole thing falls apart.
- 64How can this be applied to Descartes' version of the ontological argument?Kant and Russell comment on how the statement "God exists as he is supremely perfect" is misleading. This is because atheists don't have this concept of God, so faith is needed to accept this premise.
- 65Why does it seem that Anselm's version of the ontological argument appeals to reason?The logic used is very convincing.
- 66Who commented on this?Bertrand Russell: "Great God in Boots - the ontological argument is sound!"
- 67Why was he convinced of this?Shows that it is logical to accept that a being with necessary existence must exist (2nd form)
- 68What does Kant say about Descartes' version of the ontological argument?He agreed that "to posit a triangle and yet to reject its three angles, is self-contradictory." However, he suggested that there is no self-contradiction in completely rejecting the triangle, subsequently rejecting the three angles.
- 69How does he apply this to God?By saying that if you believe in God then the reasoning behind his existence being necessary is logical. However, you can reject God and so his necessity.
- 70What does this mean in relation to faith?It may help a believer to develop an understanding of God, perhaps strengthening that relationship and giving further reason to praise God's nature.
- 71What does Karl Barth attempt to argue for about Anselm's argument?That we cannot gain knowledge through reason, and so Anselm uses faith alone.
- 72Why can this not be applied to Descartes?As Descartes was, clearly, attempting to prove the existence of God through his argument not affirming faith.
- 73What does Barth say about "faith seeking understanding"?He says that this shows Anselm views it only from a faith point of view rather than attempting to prove God's existence.
- 74What does Barth say about the way Anselm's ontological argument is written?It is written as a prayer addressed to God, not as an attempt to confirm his existence but a prayer of meditation in order to affirm faith.
- 75What does Barth say about Anselm's idea of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"?It is not presented as the first premise in a syllogism for the existence of God, but a description of what the believer thinks about God.
Información
- Descripción
- Currently just a discussion of Anselm, Descartes, Malcolm and Plantinga.
- Creado por
- Jessica Ridley
- Visitas
- 23
- Valoración