Cutsinger's Ontological Argument

[reggieM]

Alvin Plantinga addresses Kant’s criticism of St. Anselm’s argument here:

mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.htmlhttp://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html

“Where did [Anselm] try to define God into being by adding existence to a list of properties that defined some concept?”

And he offers his own modification of the ontological argument:

1 The property of being maximally great is exemplified in some possible world.
2 The property of being maximally great is equivalent, by definition, to the property of being maximally excellent in every possible world.
3 The property of being maximally excellent entails the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.
4 A universal property is one that is exemplified in every possible world or none.
5 Any property that is equivalent to some property that holds in every possible world is a universal property.
6 Therefore, there exists a being that is essentially omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect (God).

Feser defends Plantinga’s argument against common criticisms (while not fully accepting it at the same time).

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/plantingas-ontological-argument.html

 

[Kilbourne]

Hi Reggie,

I am aware of Plantinga’s OA. However, I am interested in whether Cutsinger’s 8 step version of Anselm’s first argument avoids Kant’s critique.

What do you think?

K

 

[Kilbourne]

The premise in step 5 appears to be where Kant’s objection is applicable. To say it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in the mind alone apparently asks us to believe an actual something is greater than that same thing just in our imagination. But Kant says we do not make any addition to a certain imagined thing when we further declare that it exists in reality or “is”.

Cutsinger thinks Kant misunderstands Anselm’s principle. He states:

When the proof says that existence* in re* is greater than existence solely in intellectu, it makes much better sense to assume that the reality referred to is reality as such, and not the existence of some particular thing, whether a tree or a mood. The point, in other words, is that it is greater for anything to exist in reality than for anything to exist solely in the mind…"

In other words, anything actual will always be greater than any purely imaginary thingn no matter how grandly conceived. A speck of dust on my desk always will be greater than my imaginary mansion.

Cutsinger continues:

As you will remember, this was precisely how I formulated step five in my summary. To exist in reality, I said, is greater that to exist in the mind alone. If however I am correct in this reading, then Kant’s concern–that the argument is smuggling existence into the concept of something, or supposing that a concept qua concept is greater insofar as it includes the idea of existence–are in no way germane. On the contrary, Anselm’s teaching is that all real things as a class are greater than all merely imaginary or mental things as a class, and it follows (if this is true) that in comparing any particular real thing with any particular mental being the real thing must always be the greater…

 

[Kilbourne]

BTW, Cutsinger’s lecture can be found here: cutsinger.net/pdf/anselm.pdf

 

[reggieM]

Hi Reggie,

I am aware of Plantinga’s OA. However, I am interested in whether Cutsinger’s 8 step version of Anselm’s first argument avoids Kant’s critique.

What do you think?

K

Hi Kilbourne,

First of all, I think Professor Cutsinger’s refutation of Kant’s critique is very strong. As he says, Kant probably didn’t even read Anselm’s text.

I should perhaps mention, however—in their defense—that it is very doubtful whether Aquinas or Kant ever actually read the Proslogion. As you may remember, what Kant attempts to refute is (in his words) “the famous ontological argument of Descartes”

Kant misunderstands the argument, but even still – yes, I agree that the 8 step version you posted does avoid the critique (which jumps from thought to being without an intermediate argument).

Personally, I find St. Anselm’s argument to be brilliant and I do not see where it has been refuted. I can accept St. Thomas’ critique but I think he misses a key-point. St. Thomas explains that since there can be differing definitions of God, then some will not accept that God is TTWNGCBT. That doesn’t really address the argument though since it starts with TTWNGCBT as a reasonable premise (and one that St. Thomas himself would accept).

The most important insight I found somewhere on the OA was the idea that the purpose of St. Anselm’s argument is to refute* the fool who says in his heart that there is no God* (Psalms 14:1).

This adds a lot of clarity and takes away a number of objections.

As soon as “the fool” understands that God is TTWNGCBT – by accepting the definition, then the existence of God follows necessarily.

Now, it would be a contradiction and absurdity to state that God is TTWNGCBT, but that God also does not exist.

 

[reggieM]

In other words, anything actual will always be greater than any purely imaginary thingn no matter how grandly conceived. A speck of dust on my desk always will be greater than my imaginary mansion.

Exactly.

To exist in reality, I said, is greater that to exist in the mind alone. If however I am correct in this reading, then Kant’s concern–that the argument is smuggling existence into the concept of something, or supposing that a concept qua concept is greater insofar as it includes the idea of existence–are in no way germane.

As above, Kant was comparing two concepts instead of comparing imagination with real things in existence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

In Question 2 Article 1 of the Summa Theologica Aquinas says this:

“Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.”

This is as good a refutation of Anselm as I have ever heard. Aquinas clearly has read Anselm since he is using Anselm’s own language, and he clearly knows the mind of the atheist who does not acknowledge that there is a thing of which nothing greater can be conceived. Usually the atheist’s argument is centered (my point, not from Aquinas) on the view that the universe is infinite. There being an infinity of things in the universe, it is impossible to conceive of a thing of which nothing greater can be conceived (whatever that means). I’ve always had trouble understanding what the word “greater” even means for Anselm, since he does not define “greater” and anyway would have been giving a predicate to God before having proven God’s existence.

 

[empther]

1. To exist in reality is greater that to exist in the mind alone.

That’s true.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t prove God exists.

 

[reggieM]

In Question 2 Article 1 of the Summa Theologica Aquinas says this:

“Reply to Objection 2. Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.”

This is as good a refutation of Anselm as I have ever heard. Aquinas clearly has read Anselm since he is using Anselm’s own language, and he clearly knows the mind of the atheist who does not acknowledge that there is a thing of which nothing greater can be conceived.

It’s interesting and you could be right – I just don’t see it that way.

First, St. Anselm’s argument is an explanation of the Biblical phrase “the fool says in his heart that there is no God.” That is different from an atheist who denies that there is a thing of which nothing greater can be conceived - since “the fool” is stating “there is no God” – so the fool needs to have a concept of God. That’s the first premise.
Also, St. Thomas is arguing that “The Existence of God is not Self-Evident” – and interestingly, he uses the same phrase “the fool says in his heart …” as proof. Since people say there is no God, then the existence of God cannot be self-evident, because nobody can deny a self-evident truth.

Ok, but I find that a little shaky. There are atheists who deny self-evident truths all the time – claiming that something can come from nothing or there can be effects without causes. So that seems a bit dismissive by St. Thomas. I think the same about where he says that “Not everyone who hears the word God understands …” – that argument also seems very shaky. He explains that some think of God as a body – but St. Thomas knows that is an illogical and unreasonable opinion. So, people may think that God is a giant unicorn, but that’s not relevant to St. Anselm’s premise.
I think St. Thomas quietly admits that his first (dodge? ) argument isn’t very good because he says “granted that everyone understands …” – in other words, “Ok, let’s forget about that argument and move on …” St. Anselm offers a premise and its based on the common definition and understanding of God.

Usually the atheist’s argument is centered (my point, not from Aquinas) on the view that the universe is infinite. There being an infinity of things in the universe, it is impossible to conceive of a thing of which nothing greater can be conceived (whatever that means).

I haven’t really seen atheists who argue that the universe is infinite. Usually, they accept that the universe had a beginning (as contemporary physics supports) – but that quantum events make it possible for something to emerge from nothing, or perhaps there was an infinite number of universes. But I’d wonder how the same atheist could have no problem imagining an infinite number of universes but would have a real problem conceiving of a thing which possess the maximum value of being.

I’ve always had trouble understanding what the word “greater” even means for Anselm, since he does not define “greater” and anyway would have been giving a predicate to God before having proven God’s existence.

I think St. Anselm uses greater in the same way St. Thomas does in his arguments – like the argument from perfection, that there is a hierarchy of value from potential to act, and that God is complete act and fullness (which is greater than that which is potential).

So, when we look at various perfections we know, universally, that they are on a scale of value. Things are more or less in reference to the most and least. So, the maximum greatness in a being would mean fullness of being – and that has the most permanence and least contingency.

If for, example, you imagine the perfection of heaven – a place that has the maximum goodness. Then, that place has far more goodness if it actually exists than if it is only something that you imagined.

 

[reggieM]

That’s true.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t prove God exists.

If you accept that God is the greatest of all possible things.
And, you accept that the greatest of all possible things must necessarily exist.
Then God must necessarily exist.

God = greatest
Greatest = must exist
Therefore, God must exist.

So we keep in mind: “The fool says in his heart there is no God” …

So, the fool says

1. “Yes, I accept that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived”
2. “Yes, I also accept that to exist in reality is greater that to exist in the mind alone.”
3. “I then accept that that thing than which nothing greater can can be conceived must necessarily exist because that is greater than a thing that does not exist.”

… and the Fool’s conclusion?

1. Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

reggie

I haven’t really seen atheists who argue that the universe is infinite. Usually, they accept that the universe had a beginning (as contemporary physics supports) – but that quantum events make it possible for something to emerge from nothing, or perhaps there was an infinite number of universes. But I’d wonder how the same atheist could have no problem imagining an infinite number of universes but would have a real problem conceiving of a thing which possess the maximum value of being.

I agree with the Psalmist that the atheist who says in his heart there is no God is a fool (self deceiver). But we are talking about the atheist who wants to talk only with his head, not with his heart. The atheist who looks for cerebral proof for the existence of God has any number of ways to dodge Anselm’s proof. Aquinas has provided one. I have provided another. Bottom line, as Pascal argued, the atheist needs to think more with his heart than with his head.

As to your last sentence above, that’s a very good question, and it suggests how the atheist can dodge with his head. He would say something like: “If I can see one universe in front of me, I can easily imagine an infinity of universes behind me. But if I have never seen a being of which no being greater can be conceived, I have no need to begin creating one out of thin air.”

 

[reggieM]

reggie

I haven’t really seen atheists who argue that the universe is infinite. Usually, they accept that the universe had a beginning (as contemporary physics supports) – but that quantum events make it possible for something to emerge from nothing, or perhaps there was an infinite number of universes. But I’d wonder how the same atheist could have no problem imagining an infinite number of universes but would have a real problem conceiving of a thing which possess the maximum value of being.

I agree with the Psalmist that the atheist who says in his heart there is no God is a fool (self deceiver). But we are talking about the atheist who wants to talk only with his head, not with his heart. The atheist who looks for cerebral proof for the existence of God has any number of ways to dodge Anselm’s proof. Aquinas has provided one. I have provided another. Bottom line, as Pascal argued, the atheist needs to think more with his heart than with his head.

As to your last sentence above, that’s a very good question, and it suggests how the atheist can dodge with his head. He would say something like: “If I can see one universe in front of me, I can easily imagine an infinity of universes behind me. But if I have never seen a being of which no being greater can be conceived, I have no need to begin creating one out of thin air.”

Good points, Charle.
If a person talks just from their head then that is deliberately cutting off evidence that we gain through the heart.
I think your last point is correct also. There is an unlimited way to dodge the point. The same atheist could say “what is in my mind is greater than what really exists”. The fact that this violates basic first principles doesn’t seem to matter.

 

[Kilbourne]

Reggie and Ch2,

Thank you for your contributions.

It seems to me that Cutsinger has rehabilitated Anselm’s much maligned first argument from Prosl. II.

I’ve always felt that the argument from Prosl. III to be very strong. My version of it is this:

1. God is TTWNGCBT.
2. TTWNGCBT can be thought (is conceivable)
3. Whatever exists either exists necessarily or contingently.
4. It is greater to exist necessarily than to exist contingently.
5. Suppose God exists only contingently. But that leads to a contradiction because I could then conceive of a greater, namely an entity which exists necessarily. Therefore God cannot exist contingently.
6. God exists necessarily.
7. God exists.

By my way of thinking, the only way to credibly attack it is to challenge Step 2, namely the very conceivability of TTWNGCBT.

 

[Kilbourne]

Ch2 and Reggie,

Ch2 said:

I agree with the Psalmist that the atheist who says in his heart there is no God is a fool (self deceiver). But we are talking about the atheist who wants to talk only with his head, not with his heart. The atheist who looks for cerebral proof for the existence of God has any number of ways to dodge Anselm’s proof. Aquinas has provided one. I have provided another. Bottom line, as Pascal argued, the atheist needs to think more with his heart than with his head.

and reggie responded:

Good points, Charle.
If a person talks just from their head then that is deliberately cutting off evidence that we gain through the heart.

I really like Cutsinger’s introduction where he quotes from CS Lewis. Lewis describes his “toolshed” experience where first looks a beam of light shining in a dark toolshed. Then he looks directly into the beam of light. He concludes “Looking along the beam and looking at the beam are very different experiences.”

Cutsinger uses that analogy to great effect, when asks us look along Anselm’s argument instead of just at it.

 

[reggieM]

1. To exist in reality is greater that to exist in the mind alone. [Take this to mean: existing things as a class, are greater than any purely mental being. So, for example, a speck of dust is greater than an imagined mansion.

Here’s a challenge …

If I imagined a great hospital that took care of people in an impoverished area … is that not as great as an existing speck of dust?
What if the thought of that hospital moved me to actually create the hospital and take care of thousands of people? Would the thought have greatness?

– I’ll offer my rebuttal from a scholastic view …
A thing possesses perfection (greatness) insofar as it really exists. The more existence it has (actualization) the greater its perfection. A lack of greatness (goodness, perfection) is the result of lack of being. God is the fullness of being – the fullness of greatness.

So, an imagination, no matter how great in concept, is less than a speck of dust that exists in reality. The thought is pure potential.

Does the fact that a hospital did come into existence add greatness to the original, imagined thought?

I guess it does. But all that means is that the thought still remains not as great as the actual hospital – although it is much greater than just an imagination that never lead to any action (like the building of a hospital).

Ok, now the harder part … is the imagination of a hospital, which actually lead to the building of a hospital, not as great as a speck of dust?

Answer: yes, it’s still not as great because if you didn’t have a speck of dust (or any matter at all), you couldn’t have a hospital. But if you didn’t have that imagination, you could still have a place to take care of sick people. ???
[/quote]

 

[JohnAlexander]

1. To exist in reality is greater that to exist in the mind alone. [Take this to mean: existing things as a class, are greater than any purely mental being. So, for example, a speck of dust is greater than an imagined mansion.
   Kilbourne

What does it mean to say that something is greater than something else? Why is something imagined less great than something real? What is the basis for this?

It sounds like a value judgement. If you have a value judgements you are presupposing the existence of God.
[/quote]

 

[empther]

1. To exist in reality is greater that to exist in the mind alone.

That’s true.
Nevertheless, it doesn’t prove God exists.

If you accept that God is the greatest of all possible things.
And, you accept that the greatest of all possible things must necessarily exist.
Then God must necessarily exist.

God = greatest
Greatest = must exist
Therefore, God must exist.

But in point 5 of the ontological argument as formulated in this thread, it is not yet accepted that “God is”. That is the conclusion the ontological argument is trying to get to. So point 5 doesn’t prove anything.

But even worse than that…
… the idea of God being necessary is not part of the ontological argument. It was introduced later by Aquinas in other discussions. Furthermore, Aquinas talked about God’s necessary existence after proving God exists. He could not use necessity as a proof of God, or he would have done so.
So talking about necessity doesn’t make the ontological proof true because it changes it.

 

[reggieM]

But in point 5 of the ontological argument as formulated in this thread, it is not yet accepted that “God is”. That is the conclusion the ontological argument is trying to get to. So point 5 doesn’t prove anything.

St. Anselm is explaining the verse: “The Fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.””
So, the Fool has already said something about God. To determine that “God is not”, the Fool need to know what God is.

So, point one of the argument starts:

God is that than which nothing greater can be thought (TTWNGCBT).

That’s a premise. If the Fool doesn’t accept that premise then his own statement “There is no God” is not reasonable, since he’s talking about something undefined (he could claim that God is a giant unicorn".
Anselm is starting from a common definition – so the premise includes: “If God is …” then, etc.

… the idea of God being necessary is not part of the ontological argument. It was introduced later by Aquinas in other discussions. Furthermore, Aquinas talked about God’s necessary existence after proving God exists. He could not use necessity as a proof of God, or he would have done so.
So talking about necessity doesn’t make the ontological proof true because it changes it.

I can follow you and agree to a point – it does change things. But let’s forget an appeal to authority (as great as St. Thomas is) and just ask why we can’t use necessity in this argument?

 

[empther]

why we can’t use necessity in this argument?

You can’t prove God exists by saying his existence is necessary.

First, you must prove God exists. Then you can examine more ideas about him.

Aquinas started by arguing for God’s existence from his effects, that is, the universe, “motion” which can’t go back to infinity.

It’s like geometry. First you define “point”, “line” and things like that. Then you can talk about circles, triangles, areas etc. .

 

[reggieM]

You can’t prove God exists by saying his existence is necessary.

First, you must prove God exists. Then you can examine more ideas about him.

Aquinas started by arguing for God’s existence from his effects, that is, the universe, “motion” which can’t go back to infinity.

Right – but isn’t that the same as saying that “a First Cause necessarily exists since otherwise there would be an infinite regress”?

Every effect, necessarily must have a cause.
Every sequence of events, necessarily must have a beginning.
In an infinite period of time, every possibility must necessarily be realized.

So, it follows:

If you accept that God is defined as the greatest of all things.

Then necessarily, it’s not possible that God does not exist.

The greatest of all things must necessarily exist because to exist is greater than what is just imagined.

Then God must necessarily exist.

The idea of necessity just follows from the logic. I think it was used in every one of St. Thomas’ arguments, as above.

You can’t prove God exists by saying his existence is necessary.

Yes, but keep in mind – it is the conclusion that God is necessary, not just a statement.
We determine that the greatest thing we can conceive of is that which exists. So we’re not saying first that God is necessary, but only drawing that conclusion later – in exactly the same way we say the First Cause is necessary.