born to a noble family in italy as a young man, joins the benedictine order in normandy, france,...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in
Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15 as Abbot
Thereafter, named Archbishop of Canterbury, England for final 16 years of his life.
Aims to establish the existence of God on the basis of reason rather than faith
Arguments for the existence of God raise the general question: how do we prove the existence of anything?
1
![Page 2: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Distinguish sensible/observable from nonsensible/nonobservable objectsNote that sensation/observation is a
form of thought; sensations are ideasEmpirical proof of the existence of X
from observation of X is a proof of the existence of X from a “sensory idea” of X
can we prove the existence of X from ideas, sensory or not?
2
![Page 3: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
It is important to keep this point in mind when considering Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God since Anselm’s critics fault his argument saying that it attempts to prove the existence of X from the mere idea of X
3
![Page 4: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Ontology = the study of being/existence Anselm’s argument for the existence of God
came to be called “The Ontological Argument” by Immanuel Kant (German Philosopher: 1724 – 1804)
The argument presented next is in the form of Reductio ad Absurdum Arguments of this form attempt to prove X by
demonstrating that if X were false something impossibly absurd would be true. Thus, X must be true
4
![Page 5: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Ontological Argument By definition: God = that than which nothing greater can be
thought (conceived) In order to derive a contradiction: Assume that God does not
exist It is possible to conceive of something, x, exactly similar to
God except that x exists It is greater to exist than not to exist So, x is conceived to be greater than God But this contradicts the identity or definition specified in the
first line of the argument This contradiction depends on the assumption that God does
not exist Hence, the assumption that God does not exist must be
false Hence, God exists!
5
![Page 6: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Gaunilo was a monk and a contemporary of Anselm.
Gaunilo believed in the existence of God as a matter of faith rather than reason
Gaunilo attempted to refute the Ontological Argument by showing that the argument is invalid (def.)
6
![Page 7: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
In the ontological argument: replace the definition of God with a definition of “the perfect island”
The perfect island =the island than which none greater can be conceived
The resulting proof "proves" the existence of the perfect island if the ontological argument proves anything
But it is absurd to suppose that we have proven the existence of the perfect island
So, by parallel reasoning, the ontological argument proves nothing
7
![Page 8: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Definitions in Proofs In comparing Anselm and Gaunilo, we
must ask under what conditions it is legitimate to use definitions (or expressions of our ideas/concepts of things)
8
![Page 9: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
We do use definition in proofs of many things e.g. mathematics
Also
Fido is a dog
Dogs = canine’s (def)
So, Fido is a canine
So, why not use definitions in ontological proofs?
9
![Page 10: Born to a noble family in Italy As a young man, joins the Benedictine Order in Normandy, France, residing in the monastery there for 30 years – 15](https://reader035.vdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070412/56649eb75503460f94bc0f07/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The Ontological Argument is a priori. Are proofs regarding existence invalid? Are only a posteriori (empirical) proofs regarding existence valid?
If so, why?
10