The Ontological argument 2

This time it’s critical!This time it’s critical!

Meet the commentators

Gaunilo of Marmoutier Immanuel Kant Gottlob Frege 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

Frege V Anselm &Descartes

Round 4

Frege (1848-1925)

1st order predicatesTell us about the nature of something

2nd order predicates Tell us about concepts

Frege argues that Anselm & Descartes only use 1st order predicates, when existence is a 2nd order predicate.

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 DaviesV 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 argument2) Against the argument3) Reply for the argument4) Reply against the argument

Russell’s idea

To label & define something is to provide an intention

An animal with four legs & uddersIntention 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.