The ontological argument

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Teleological or Design Argument Questions so far: Is divine activity the best explanation for the existence of the universe, life and moral agents? How are natural and moral evils reconciled with the traditional conception of God? Cosmological Argument Questions so far: Does the cosmological argument show that actual infinities cannot exist? Does it show that the universe must have had a first cause or explanation? Ambiguously supported by science. If successful, it shows that a first cause is a necessary thing IF there are contingent beings. It does not necessarily show that the first cause is IN ITSELF necessary. Both arguments have an empirical basis. They ask us to look at features of our universe, and make inferences based upon them. But, you can also see that there is a jump up in level of generality, attention in the first being paid to particular entities and their features, relying on our knowledge of biological organisms. The cosmological argument widens focus, looking at a more general feature of all things in the universe living or dead: Their contingency (dependence on other things for existence). Still, both arguments are empirical in this way. They attempt to account for observed features of objects in our world.

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument is different. It does not look at the features of natural objects in the world Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"?But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that something actually exists.                    Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a picture in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it. However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind.               And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is impossible. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality. Anselm’s argument: Dramatic Reading Anyone? Anselm of Canterbury

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument is different. It does not look at the features of natural objects in the world Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"?But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that something actually exists.                    Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a picture in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it. However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind.               And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is impossible. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality. What is the ‘object’ of analysis in this passage? What am I asking you to concentrate upon and dissect? Anselm of Canterbury

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"?But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that something actually exists.                    Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a picture in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it. However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind.               And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater.If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is impossible. Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the mind and in reality. What is the ‘object’ of analysis in this passage? What am I asking you to concentrate upon and dissect? Anselm of Canterbury

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Reconstructing this argument, using that concept, we can present Anselm’s reasoning as a sort of Socratic conversation between St. Anselm and “the fool” of Psalms 14 and 53. I want you to examine a concept, that is undoubtedly in your mind. Upon analysis of the concept, I think you can draw an existential conclusion. What is the concept I focus on? The fool says in his heart,       "There is no God."        They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;        there is no one who does good. “That than which none greater can be conceived.” or “Something than which none greater can be conceived.” The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Anselm of Canterbury

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Mr. Fool, you claim that God does not exist. Now, I assume you know what you are saying, know what you are talking about? You know what the word “God” refers to or at the very least, what it means? The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Why yes. Of course. I mean to say that there is no being that created the universe, is all good, all knowing, all powerful. That is the meaning of the concept ‘God’ isn’t it? What could be plainer? Just as I know what I’m talking about when I deny the existence of Santa. I have in mind a definite description of the entity.

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion By no means do I disagree, but I just want to make sure you have adequately considered all aspects of the concept, that you have a complete grasp of it. Will you allow me to probe? The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Be my guest. Would you agree that God, if he exists, is the maximally great being? Whatever else he might be, he should be ‘that–than-which-none-greater-can-be-conceived.’ For, unless he had this characteristic, he would not be the maximally great being. Hence, speaking paradoxically, he would be something other than God. Why? If you could conceive of something greater, then that something, whatever else it might be, would be greater than the first purported maximally great being. By definition IT would be God, not the first. Oh, I see. Gotcha. Where ya’ goin’ with this Anselm?

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Just making sure you do understand what you mean by saying “God does not exist. That’s all. Now, you do agree that the word “God” does refer to or mean “that than which none greater can be conceived.”? The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Yes. Yes. But can we abbreviate that phrase? Let’s refer to it as the TTW? Yes. I should think that is obvious. Done. So, by simple substitution of terms, you are saying “TTW does not exist,” correct?

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Now, Mr. Atheist, concentrate on that conception of God you have in mind when you say “God does not exist.” Is it accurate to say that you believe you accurately conceive of God and that you also claim nothing in reality corresponds to that concept or idea in your head? The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Of course. What else could I mean? I have this idea in mind, of the maximally great being, and claim there is nothing in reality that corresponds to it. What do you mean? You’re losing me. Yes, but is that a conception than which none greater can be conceived? Can’t you conceive of a greater situation?

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Well, just think of what you are claiming as one of two possible situations. You claim the situation is that you have this conception in your mind, of the TTW, and that there is nothing out there in reality that corresponds to it. Remember, like the Santa example you gave me? Isn’t that what you take the real situation to be like? The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Yes. Well, yes of course, but it is not what is actually the case. That’s my point. So, isn’t there another possible situation, where you have that conception of TTW in your mind, and there IS something out there in reality that corresponds to it? Just like the situation that would be the case if there really was a jolly elf who delivered gifts on December 24-25 each year. You do admit that God’s existing at the same time you are conceiving of him, is a possible situation, right?

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Well, hold on a minute Clyde. If you do admit these two possible situations, you do admit that you can conceive of them both. Am I right? The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Yes. Of course, and don’t call me Clyde. Er..Um.., well, it does sure seem like… So you admit the two situations, and that you can conceive them both. I have a simple question: Of the two situations, which is greater, the first or the second? Is it the situation where you have the idea of God, and there is nothing in reality that corresponds to it; or is it the second situation where you have the idea of God and there IS something in reality that corresponds to it? Which is greater? why do I feel like I’m being trapped?

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion Don’t you see? In order to conceive of God correctly, you must make use of this second conception: the conception of a maximally great being that exists. Otherwise it is not a maximally great being you are thinking of. It is not the greatest possible situation, as it were. The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. So, you are saying that in order for me to conceive of God correctly I have to conceive of him as the TTW, and hence as something that exists, because existence lends more greatness than non-existence? Yep.

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion So, in order to properly conceive of God as not existing, you must first conceive of him as existing. The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. So, in reality I am conceiving of God as existing at the very same time I am thinking of him as not existing? Yes. Which is a plainly incoherent thought, contradictory, is it not? And that incoherence can be traced back to the initial assumption, that one can conceive of TTW or God as not existing. So, in reality, you have just shown that the sentence “God does not exist” is not only false, but necessarily false, as is any other self-contradictory statement. So, it follows that God exists. You cannot coherently deny this, no more than you can coherently deny triangles have three sides. Just as three-sidedness is essential or necessary to triangularity, so too is existence essential or necessary to God. So he exists, and necessarily exists.

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Well, I must say you have given me real cause to reconsider my position..but.. And so, I may claim the crown of victory, having vanquished my foe with rapier-like logic!

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Not so Fast Saint Anselm! And you, Mr. Fool, do not be so quick to admit defeat. Gaunilon of Marmoutiers

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Gaunilon believes he can show there is something suspect in Anselm’s argument. If you admit it works in one case, it seems you have to admit it works in other cases. This leads to some absurd results. Gaunilon of Marmoutiers

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. Try to deny that the island than which none greater can be conceived exists. If you properly conceive of this island, do you not have to conceive of it as existing? If so, do you not have to conceive of it as existing in order to deny its existence? So, by parity of reasoning, it seems Anselm can get the fool to admit the island TTW exists! So what are we waiting for? Let’s go find it. (And the Steak TTW, and the Beer TTW, the spouse TTW, the job TTW..etc. Gaunilon of Marmoutiers

Philosophy of Religion : 

Philosophy of Religion We understand that-than-which-nothing-worse-can-be-conceived, and what is understood exists in the mind. Thus, since we understand that-than-which-nothing-worse-can-be-conceived, it exists in the mind. If that-than-which-nothing-worse-can-be-conceived exists only in the mind, however, then it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is clearly worse. Therefore, if that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived exists only in the mind, then that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived is that-than-which-a-worse-can-be-conceived. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore, that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived exists both in the mind and in reality. But, the existence of that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived is incompatible with the existence of God; if that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived exists, then God doesn't. For if he did, a worse state of affairs could be conceived (the one in which he doesn’t exist). Therefore, since that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived does exist, God doesn't. The Ontological Argument looks at and analyzes the the logical features or implications of a concept or idea we have. In fact, the above argument, styled on Anselm’s, can be used to prove God cannot exist. It substitutes “worse” for “greater.” Gaunilon of Marmoutiers