Strengths and Weaknesses of the Ontological Argument

Strengths
1. Deductive and Analytic
  1. a priori
  2. logical, mathematical (Descartes)
  3. Based on 1 statement
2. If you agree with the original statement, 'God is GTTWCBC, it is logical.
3. Starting Point, definition is understandable to everyone.
  1. Then you have to agree or disagree with it. No ambiguity - God exists, or God does not exist.
  2. All key terms have fixed and unchanging meanings - no room for vagueness
4. Does not depend on variable and changing evidence - the definition is absolute and necessary. Can draw conclusions which are not vague.
5. If existence is a predicate, to deny God (TTWNGCBC) exists is a contradiction
  1. Davis: existence CAN be a real predicate. My concept of the real 100 thalers has the predicate of purchasing power in the real world; the concept of 100 thalers does not
    1. Anselm's = right = "it is better to exist in reality than in mind alone' = persuasive
      1. BUT... sometimes things are better in the mind than in reality...
6. If Plantinga's possible world's theory + predicates is accepted, it is proof that God exists
7. Anti-realists: true for the believer
8. It is true that to reject something you have to have a picture / concept of it in your mind, so rejecting the conclusion is a contradiction
9. Excellent, if seen as a prayer (Anselm's starting point). Masterpiece for the religious believer. Explains what Christians believe about God.
Weaknesses
1. Anselm: no agreed definition of God. Don't agree = OA falls apart.
2. Hume: no empirical evidence
  1. Cannot define God into existence
  2. can't establish the truth of something by analysing the concept.
3. Russell/Kant
  1. You must prove that something exists before you add exist as a quality/predicate of them.
  2. Existence is not a predicate
    1. Frede - 1st and 2nd order predicates. Anselm uses existence as 1st order predicate; should be 2nd
4. Process Theodicy believers - God is weak / fellow-sufferer, not TTWNGCBC
5. Just because you imagine something (like unicorns/island) doesn't mean it exists - Gaunilo
6. A posteriori arguments e.g. religious experience, design, cosmological = better arguments, based on evidence which can be observed
7. Dawkins - not a shred of evidence = disregard it.
Is the OA convincing?
1. YES
  1. Relies on the definition of the word God. If that definition is agreed on, OA is convincing.
  2. things that exist in reality are better than things which exist in the mind - convincing.
  3. Convincing as a masterpiece in logic and word play. Flows logically and is coherent.
  4. Convincing for the theist, e.g. Anselm.
  5. Surely existence is a predicate? Without it, I would have no other predicates. If so, then OA is convincing.
  6. Counter-arguments to challenges by e.g. Gaunilo are convincing. EG: islands do not have an 'intrinsic maximum' - you can always add something to the definition e.g. another palm tree. therefore, no contingent thing such as an island can be the greatest conceivable. Only applies to God, a necessary being. So, OA is convincing.
2. NO
  1. If definition of God is not accepted = not convincing.
  2. Just because it IS better to win the lottery in reality than in the mind does NOT mean that it has to happen in reality.
  3. Can define things as we wish, but does not mean it exists e.g. Santa Claus.
  4. Russell / Barth etc - explains what God is like, but not whether he exists.
  5. Existence is not a predicate - see Hume, Kant, Russell, Frede. If the OA cannot apply to anything other than God, is it really convinging?
  6. No empirical data - won't convince sceptics.

Next up

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Ontological Argument

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by 07kgrace about 9 years ago

	Copied by scotke about 9 years ago