1 / 30

anselm aquinas

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 AD). The Ontological Argumentfor theExistence of God. (Text, pp. 263-4). Credo ut intelligam (

jaden
Download Presentation

anselm aquinas

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. Anselm & Aquinas

    3. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 AD) The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

    4. Credo ut intelligam (“I believe that I might understand”) The relationship between faith and reason (Faith must precede understanding?)

    5. Why is the ontological argument called “ontological”?

    6. What is the “ontological reference” of the word “God”? That is, what kind of being does the word “God” refer to? According to Anselm, the word “God” refers to “something than which nothing greater can be thought of.”

    7. Necessity & contingency (again) Necessarily true statements (tautologies) cannot be false, and necessarily false statements (contradictions) cannot be true. Contingent statements can be either true or false, depending on facts, evidence, & circumstances.

    8. Necessary beings (i.e., things with necessary existence) cannot not-exist. Impossible beings (i.e., things whose existence is contradictory, e.g., round squares) cannot exist.

    9. Contingent beings (i.e., beings whose existence and nonexistence are neither necessary nor impossible) may exist (rocks) or not (unicorns). Their existence is (logically) possible, and their nonexistence is also (logically) possible.

    10. Is it logically possible for the existence of “something than which nothing greater can be thought of” to be contingent? More precisely, is the nonexistence of “something than which nothing greater can be thought of” logically possible?

    11. Anselm’s “1st” ontological argument (Text, pp. 263-4)

    12. In other words,

    13. So God must exist, and atheism must be false, right?

    14. Anselm’s “2d” Ontological Argument (Text, p. 264)

    15. In other words, It is possible to think of a necessary being, i.e., a being whose nonexistence is impossible. Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence, and a necessary being is greater than a contingent being. If the nonexistence of God is possible, then God must be a contingent being. But then “God” would be “not-God” because a contingent being cannot be “something than which nothing greater can be thought of.” Thus, the claim that God’s nonexistence is possible implies a contradiction and is therefore necessarily false. If the claim that God’s nonexistence is possible is necessarily false, then the claim that God’s nonexistence is impossible is necessarily true (because the negation of a contradiction is a tautology).

    16. So God’s nonexistence is impossible, and therefore God must exist. Thus, agnosticism must be false too, right?

    17. Furthermore, God is the ONLY BEING whose nonexistence is logically impossible. (That is, no other being deserves the title of “something than which nothing greater can be thought of.”)

    18. The existences of all other beings (actual or conceivable) are either contingent or impossible.

    19. How can “the fool” doubt or deny the existence of God? Anselm’s answer: The “fool” (i.e., the atheist or agnostic) does not understand the true meaning of “something than which nothing greater can be thought of.”

    20. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274 AD) on the existence of God

    21. Aquinas’s three main points The existence of God is not self-evident (to the human mind) (Text, pp. 265-6). Although the existence of God is not self-evident, it can be proved by reasoning from effect to cause (Text, pp. 266). There are five proofs of God’s existence (Text, pp. 266-8).

    22. Aquinas’s 1st argument: change

    23. Critical Questions on Aquinas’s 1st Argument (Think carefully about the following questions.) The 2d premise: Doesn’t it imply determinism? Doesn’t it rule out human freedom? The inference: Even if the argument proves the existence of an uncaused first cause, does it prove that there is only one such originating cause? Might there not be more than one? And even if the argument proves that there is just one first cause, is Aquinas entitled to say that it is “God”? What are the various attributes of “God”? Must a first cause have all of those attributes?

    24. Aquinas’s 2d argument: causation

    25. Critical Questions on Aquinas’s 2nd Argument (Think carefully about the following questions.) How does A’s 2nd argument differ from his 1st? (The 1st looks at change from the standpoint of effects, and the 2nd looks at change from the standpoint of causes. Do you see that? The two arguments are not exactly the same.) The inference: Same questions as on the 1st argument. Even if the argument proves the existence of an uncaused first cause, does it prove that there is only one such originating cause? Might there not be more than one? And even if the argument proves that there is just one first cause, is Aquinas entitled to say that it is “God”? What are the various attributes of “God”? Must a first cause have all of those attributes?

    26. Aquinas’s 3d argument: contingency & necessity

    27. Critical Questions on Aquinas’s 3rd Argument (Think carefully about the following questions.) 2nd premise: Are there any reasons to doubt the truth of this premise (which assumes that a contingent being must come into existence)? 3rd premise: Are there any reasons to doubt the truth of this premise? Like the 2nd premise, the 3rd premise assumes that contingent beings must come into existence. If that is true of one contingent being, then (Aquinas reasons) it must be true of all of them together. Thus, if all things now existing are contingent, then they all must have come into existence before now; and if there is no necessary being, then at some time before now there must have been nothing (absolutely nothing) in existence. Is there any way around that? The inference: Even if the argument proves the existence of an uncaused first cause that is a necessary being, does it prove that there is only one such originating and necessarily existing cause? Might there not be more than one? And even if the argument proves that there is just one necessarily existing first cause, is Aquinas entitled to say that it is “God”? What are the various attributes of “God”? Must a necessarily existing first cause have all of the divine attributes?

    28. Aquinas’s 5th argument: natural order & design

    29. (Simplified Version)

    30. Aquinas’s 4th argument: gradations of value

    31. Critical Questions on Aquinas’s 4th Argument Do you disagree with the 1st premise? Why? If you disagree with the 1st premise, then it is your view that nothing is better than anything else (see next slide). Do you disagree with the 2nd premise? Why? Can anything be (really) better than anything else in the absence of an actually-existing perfection? Is the argument valid? Yes, it is. So if the premises are true, then it necessarily follows that the conclusion is true. In this case (if the argument is sound), Aquinas really does prove the existence of “God” (a perfect being). Do you see that? A perfect being would possess all divine attributes, and there cannot be more than one perfect being. Do you see why?

    32. Theories that hold that nothing is really better than anything else: Axiological subjectivism (vs. objectivism) Axiological relativism (vs. absolutism) Axiological nihilism (vs. essentialism?) Axiological non-cognitivism (skepticism) (vs. cognitivism)

    33. That’s all for now . . . .

More Related