Concerning the existence and nature of God, Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the Archbishop of Canterbury, offers in Proslogium an a priori argument known as the ontological argument.[1]
Anselm stated that God is “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This God or Being can be conceived in one’s mind or understanding. However, since existence in reality is greater than existence only in understanding, Anslem posits that the maximally powerful and greatest being exists in reality.
Though heralded as the only a priori argument for God’s existence, the ontological argument is often criticized as a failed attempt. The critics’ primary objection is that, just because something or someone can be conceived or (or denied of) in one’s mind, that does not necessarily make that thing or being existent, i.e., unicorns or Fountain of Youth, “a flying spaghetti monster” as quipped by Richard Dawkins, or Gaunilo’s “island than which none greater is possible.” Anselm responded to Gaunilo, perhaps unconvincingly, that ontological reasoning applies only to God and nothing else.
Immanuel Kant rejected Anselm’s argument, stating that existence is not a predicate. Predicate is the part of a sentence or clause containing a verb phrase stating something about the subject. For example, in the sentence “I am tall,” the word “I” is the subject, and “am tall” is the predicate which describes the subject. But, when one says, “God exists,” the word “exist” is not a predicate since the concept of God already exists, according to Kant. Further, in the sentence “God does not exist,” the predicate “does not exist” cannot describe God since it is assumed that God already exists.
While Kant’s objection had a lot of support, not everyone is persuaded. Alvin Plantinga, for example, argues that existence is a unique property about being, not a predicate. William Rowe cleverly shows that Kant’s objection can be proven false since a predicate can be ascribed to non-existent things or beings. In the sentence “Dr. Doolittle is an animal lover,” the predicate ascribed to the subject does not necessarily make the subject existent or imaginary. Put differently, the predicate “is an animal lover” does describe Dr. Doolittle, but one has no idea whether Dr. Doolittle actually exists or not. Hence, while Kant’s objection was initially lauded as an argument that found a hole in Anselm’s reasoning, it’s been shown that Kant’s objection itself has more holes, thus making his criticism less powerful.
William Rowe questions the concept of “greatest” by asking, “Is God like an angle (which has a maximum degree) or an integer (which does not have a maximum figure)?” The former is possible to determine, but the latter is not. This is an attempt to invalidate the premise. in logic, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Conversely, if one of the premises is proven false, then the conclusion is either false or only partially true. So, does the fact that there are no analogies to describe God necessarily make God nonexistent? No, there is no way for finite beings with limited understanding to fully grasp the concept of an infinite being who is maximally powerful and great.
For more on the concept of ontological argument for the existence of God, see Reasonable Faith’s video presentation and articles/discussions.
----------------------------
[1] An a priori argument is independent of experience, while an a posteriori argument is based on principles or premises that are experienced. For example, both cosmological and teleological arguments are a posteriori arguments.
コメント