Descartes' Ontological Argument builds upon that put forth by Anselm, retaining the general structure and conclusion, but changing the definition of God and, existence as a perfection rather than as merely "greater than reality". He uses this argument to demonstrate that the existence of God cannot be disputed or that there is no reason to doubt his existence, rather than the more common arguments to "prove" God's existence.
Descartes begins his argument by defining God as the "supremely perfect being". This means that God contains all perfections, as Descartes believed that perfection meant "not lacking in anyway". This means that existence is a part of perfection as to not exist would be lacking, and therefore God possesses that quality. He concludes that God must exist if he is to fulfill the definition of the supremely perfect being, as he is only truly perfect if he exists. Anything less than existence is not perfection.
A more in-depth look at Descartes' reasoning provides a stronger argument. He believed that there are things that cannot be doubted, such as mathematics. Mathematics, once demonstrated, cannot be disputed as it just is. He uses the more specific example of a triangle to illustrate his point more fully. A triangle has three sides and its internal angles are the sum of 180 degrees. This is always true of a triangle, even if no one has ever had the idea of a triangle of experienced one. It is these qualities that make a triangle, a triangle. In the same way the nature of the triangle is immutable (i.e. it cannot change), the nature of God is also immutable. Descartes argued that existence was a predicate of God.
He uses another example of mountains and valleys. He argues that God cannot be thought of without also thinking of him existing, in the same way you cannot think of a mountain without a valley - it is an innate part of its definition.
In this way, Descartes is not "arguing God into existence", he is illustrating that existence is a quality of God (like the qualities of a triangle just are), whether you acknowledge it or not. He explains the problem of some people not believing in God through the argument that some knowledge is innate. Through this he means that everyone is imprinted with certain knowledge, that they have the potential to know.
Immanuel Kant argued against Descartes by saying that existence is not a predicate of God. Using the semantics of language he shows the flaw in Descartes' argument of believing that possessing existence equates to existing.
Tuesday 24 September 2013
Anselm's First and Second Arguments
Anselm wrote from the perspective of 'fides quaerens intellectum' (faith seeking understanding), which is the concept of beginning with faith in God's existence and arguing in order to further understand him, as opposed to prove his existence.
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God follows such a structure. It is an a priori argument, coming from the Greek "ontos" for "being", and thus is examining the nature of God's existence.
The first argument is posed as a response, or rather, development, of the biblical verse "The Fool says to himself 'There is no God.'" [Psalms 14:1 and 53:1] Anselm then defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (ttwngcbc). The fool clearly has a concept of "God", as he refers to him. Anselm holds the belief that reality is greater than concept, and so in order for God to fulfill his definition, he must exist.
However, this argument presents several problems, which Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo, highlights. In his essay "On Behalf of the Fool", Gaunilo points out that in order to have an idea of a concept, so to speak, you must have experienced it in some way. This creates a weakness in Anselm's argument as it challenges the assumption that one's concept of a thing is innate. Gaunilo uses the example of an island to illustrate the flaws in Anselm's argument. He uses the same argument, but replaces God ("ttwngcbc") with "island". This shows that just because you conceive of something, does not necessitate it's existence. Gaunilo argues that if the argument can be used to prove the existence of a non-existent argument (as it would suggest), then it is flawed.
Anselm's retort to this is that it is an unfair comparison - the island is contingent, as is any other example he could use. God is the only appropriate subject of the argument as he is 'necessary', and therefore not contingent upon anything for his existence.
He improves upon his argument in his second version - presented in the Proslogion - by arguing that in order for God to be "ttwngcbc", he must be thought of as something that cannot, not, exist. He also argues that if 'God' exists in the mind only, then that being is not actually God.
This argument differs from his first through the more specific definition, or rather, distinction, of what God is. It closes the loophole in the argument that Gaunilo exploited in his "island" argument.
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God follows such a structure. It is an a priori argument, coming from the Greek "ontos" for "being", and thus is examining the nature of God's existence.
The first argument is posed as a response, or rather, development, of the biblical verse "The Fool says to himself 'There is no God.'" [Psalms 14:1 and 53:1] Anselm then defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" (ttwngcbc). The fool clearly has a concept of "God", as he refers to him. Anselm holds the belief that reality is greater than concept, and so in order for God to fulfill his definition, he must exist.
However, this argument presents several problems, which Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo, highlights. In his essay "On Behalf of the Fool", Gaunilo points out that in order to have an idea of a concept, so to speak, you must have experienced it in some way. This creates a weakness in Anselm's argument as it challenges the assumption that one's concept of a thing is innate. Gaunilo uses the example of an island to illustrate the flaws in Anselm's argument. He uses the same argument, but replaces God ("ttwngcbc") with "island". This shows that just because you conceive of something, does not necessitate it's existence. Gaunilo argues that if the argument can be used to prove the existence of a non-existent argument (as it would suggest), then it is flawed.
Anselm's retort to this is that it is an unfair comparison - the island is contingent, as is any other example he could use. God is the only appropriate subject of the argument as he is 'necessary', and therefore not contingent upon anything for his existence.
He improves upon his argument in his second version - presented in the Proslogion - by arguing that in order for God to be "ttwngcbc", he must be thought of as something that cannot, not, exist. He also argues that if 'God' exists in the mind only, then that being is not actually God.
This argument differs from his first through the more specific definition, or rather, distinction, of what God is. It closes the loophole in the argument that Gaunilo exploited in his "island" argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)