Existence of God – philosophy
Priori knowledge is Obtained separately from experience. The word priori comes
from Latin, translating to “from what is before” – the knowledge we have “Is
before” evidence. In relation to god, priori knowledge refers to individuals
believing in god without having a direct experience of god, therefore they have
faith before they have evidence. Maths is an example of priori knowledge, as the
relationships and patterns are abstract and does not require evidence for us to
learn it.
Posteriori knowledge is learnt through experience and requires evidence to be
fact, for example knowing the sun will set everyday because you’ve seen it set
every other day before. Science is another example, as it requires study and the
analysis of results before it is accurate. In relation to god, this means that those
who have faith in him have had some sort of experience with him or seen
irrefutable evidence that he exists.
The ontological argument is a Priori argument of reason, meaning it does not
require empirical evidence to be considered true. It is classed as a part of natural
theology, with its main premise being that to have a concept of perfection,
something truly perfect must exist, therefore god exists. This argument was
founded by Saint Anselm, who was an 11th century benedictine monk and the
“father of scholasticism”, which is a system we still use in modern society.
Anselm first spoke about his theory in his work “The monologium”, where he
sought to prove the existence of god through reason and defined him as a being
“that which nothing greater can be conceived” (Philsophydungeon 2022). He
believed that once god was defined, there can be no doubt that he exists,
making the existence of god analytical - it is true by definition. Extending on
from this, he argued that God must exist in the mind and in reality, because if he
just existed in the mind the he wouldn’t be the greatest conceivable being. In the
proslogion he argued that everyone has some sort of concept on what this
“powerful being” must be, and stated that anyone would be “a fool” if they did
not believe a being that is greater than all exists.
His work and theory was criticised by Gaunilo, another Benedictine monk, in his
work ‘Pro Insipiente’ or ‘on behalf of the fool’ Anselm addressed in his
‘Proslogion’. Gaunilo was an empiricist, meaning he was looking for proof that
God existed, and believed that “only that which is detectable by the human
senses is knowable”. Gaunilo argued that we cannot just define things into
existence by stating that they are perfect, and used Anselms premise for his
argument to prove this. He believed the Ontological arguments logic could be
used to prove other perfect things exist. He used the idea of an island, using the
syllogism that A) it is possible to conceive the most perfect island, and B) it is
greater to exist in the mind than in reality, so C) the most perfect island must
exist in reality. Therefore, Anselms argument was irrelevant.
Anselms response was that Gaunilo misunderstood the premise of his argument.
He argued that to be perfect the island would have to be “which no greater can
be conceived”, and this island would have to exist necessarily, but only God
possesses necessary existence so therefore God is the only perfect being.
In the 1930s, Karl Barth wrote about Anselms argument, however he implied that
Anselms argument was coming from a personal religious experience with God,
and that God gave him his definition. Barth believed that “it is by the grace of
God that God is knowable to us”, meaning that God gives us the ability to know
, he exists, for example through religious experiences. He also argued that if
humans could prove God existence purely through logic, religious experiences
where God reveals himself would not be necessary. This provides a weakness to
Anselms argument, because if he did believe this due to a personal experience
and not logic then he loses the basis for his whole argument as an “argument of
reason”.
Anselms Argument succeeds because it is deductive and draws clear conclusions
to Gods existence. It can be logically debated due to the fact that it is a Priori
argument and that it does not need evidence, which is a good thing because
human observation is not completely reliable. It also shows that Gods concept is
not illogical through the argument that everyone has a concept of God in there
mind and because he is the “greatest conceivable being” then he must also exist
in reality. Therefore God must exist by his defintion.
A big criticizer of the Ontological argument is Kant (1724-1804), However he was
not arguing against Anselm specifically but René Descartes’ version of this
argument. Kant did not disprove Gods existence, he just thought it extremely
unlikely that Gods existence can be proved by logic.
His first criticism was that ‘existence is not a predicate’. He argued that stating
something exists does not add anything onto or tell us anything about the nature
of “it”, and that real predicates give us knowledge, for example predicates such
as omnipotence or omniscience tell us something about Gods concept, however
just stating he exists does not.
He also argued that “we can accept the proposition that existing necessarily is
part of what we mean by God, but it does not follow from this that God exists in
reality”. Anselm claims that God is analytic – true by definition. However, this
does not prove he exists. Other propositions can be used to explain this, for
example frozen water is ice and unicorns are horses with horns. These are both
analytic, however we know frozen water is ice because we can see and have
evidence that water freezing is what makes ice. However, we know unicorns are
horses with horns because we can imagine them and see them in movies, but
there is no evidence that they exist in reality – they just exist in our minds.
Therefore God exists necessarily is logically true because that is how we define
him, but that does not mean or prove that he exists in reality he could just exist
in those with faiths minds.
Kant also argued that the ontological argument fails due to the word ‘if”. ‘If God
exists he would exist necessarily, the same way ‘If unicorns exist, they would be
a horse with a horn’.
Many scholars dispute this argument as proof for Gods existence, and most
agree with Kant, that it does no prove but just implies ‘if’ God exists. Others also
argue that it cannot be proof because there is doubt – facts such as 2+2=4
provides no doubt to anybody so therefore we can argue it is no doubt true.
Anselms argument still leaves many in doubt over Gods existence so it can be
argued that we cannot be sure it is true.
The teleological argument is a Posteriori argument, meaning it requires an
experience of God to prove he exists. The most prominent argument was done
by Paley, an 18th century lecturer and Archdeacon of Carlisle from 1732
(hoddereducation 2012). Paley uses the analogy of finding a watch to explain
how the universe is created. In his explanation, he invites the reader to imagine
they find a watch. The watch is so complex in design that it could not have come
about by chance; therefore the existence of a watchmaker who designed the
watch is implied. Similar to this, Paley argues that the universe is so complex it
