1 / 22

The Ontological argument 2

The Ontological argument 2. 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’.

Sophia
Download Presentation

The Ontological argument 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Ontological argument 2 This time it’s critical!

  2. Meet the commentators • Gaunilo of Marmoutier • Immanuel Kant • Gottlob Frege • Bertrand Russell • Brian Davies

  3. GauniloVAnselm Round 1

  4. The Perfect Island ‘Inestimable wealth’ ‘Abundant delicacies’ ‘all manner of riches’ ‘uninhabited’ Perfect!

  5. The Perfect Island “Anselm is trying to move from a definition of God to the suggestion of God’s existence. This is not a valid move.” Gaunilo • 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!

  6. 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

  7. KantVDescartes Round 2

  8. 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. Kant successfully refutes Descartes’ idea of existence as a predicate. In order to deal with Anselm he serves up another argument… 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.’

  9. KantVAnselm Round 3

  10. ‘existence is not a predicate’ • Kant states that’s saying Xexists 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

  11. 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

  12. FregeVAnselm &Descartes Round 4

  13. Frege (1848-1925) 1st order predicates Tell us about the natureof 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Brian DaviesVthe Ontological argument Round 4

  16. Brian Davies 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. • ‘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’.

  17. The argument against Plantinga’s‘Possible worlds’ idea. Round 5

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. Debate ‘This house believes the Ontological argument cannot prove the existence of God.’ Order of speaking: • For the argument • Against the argument • Reply for the argument • Reply against the argument

  21. Russell’s idea • To label & define something is to provide an intention An animal with four legs & udders Intention 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.

  22. 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.

More Related