Arguments For God From Reason

Question 1

Synthetic statements

Answer 1

Statements which require external (empirical) evidence to be proven true or false.

Question 2

Analytic statements

Answer 2

Statements which are true by definition – they contain the truth within the statement (a priori).

Question 3

What is a predicate?

Answer 3

The predicate is the part of the sentence that gives information, or expands our knowledge of the subject (thing the sentence is about).

Question 4

What do ontological arguments claim?

Answer 4

That God’s existence can be proven a priori

Question 5

What is a priori?

Answer 5

It uses deductive reasoning, so, if the premises are true, the conclusion is absolutely certain. This would be an incredible achievement for human reason.

Question 6

Give an example of a priori argument?

Answer 6

-Socrates is a man
-All men are mortal
-Therefore Socrates is mortal

Question 7

Who is saint Anselm?

Answer 7

The earliest Ontological argument was put forward by Anselm, born in Italy in 1033, a Benedictine monk and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

He was a great Catholic theologian and philosopher who wrote several important works. As a follower of Plato, Anselm believes that we can know God’s existence by reason, a priori.

He puts forward his ontological argument in Proslogion (1078), writing from the perspective of ‘faith seeking understanding.’ The entire text is written as a prayer to God.

Question 8

What does he say about the ‘fool’

Answer 8

The fool says in his heart that there is no God (Psalm 14:1)

Question 9

What is anselm’s definition of God?

Answer 9

Anselm starts his argument with a definition of God that both the theist and the atheist can agree on:
• Both can agree that God exists in the mind (after all, even the strictest atheist can think of God - if they couldn’t then they wouldn’t understand what they didn’t believe in!)
• Although we cannot fully conceive (understand) God, we do know that we can’t conceive of anything greater than God. Hence, everyone can agree that God is:

‘That than which nothing greater can be conceived’

Anselm is saying that God is the highest sum of all perfections, where absolutely nothing could surpass him.

Question 10

What is Anselm’s ontological argument-version 1?

Answer 10

P1- God exists as an idea in our mind
P2-A being that exists in reality is greater than an imaginary being
Anselm gives the example of a painter, who has an idea of a painting in his/her mind. When the painting exists in reality, it is greater than when it is just an idea in the artist’s mind.
P3-If God exists only in the mind, he would not be the greatest being (this would be a contradiction).
P4- Therefore, God must exist in the mind and in reality.
Anselm is saying that the very definition of God proves his existence.

Question 11

What does the success of ontological arguments depend on?

Answer 11

The success of ontological arguments depends on the logical reasoning. If there is a logical fallacy (error in reasoning), then the premises and conclusion should be challenged.

Question 12

What is the criticism of premise 1 of Anselm’s ontological argument version 1?

Answer 12

Is it really possible to come up with an accurate definition of God – a being of whom we have no knowledge nor empirical evidence?
Anselm doesn’t define what ‘greatness’ is – greatness means different things to different people
He doesn’t tell us what God is, in himself – his nature. What is God like? Is God the God of Christian belief?

Question 13

What are the criticisms of premise 2 of Anselm’s ontological argument version 1?

Answer 13

Anselm gives the example of a painter who has an idea of a painting in his/her mind - the painting is greater once it has been painted because now it exists in reality as well as in the mind of the painter.
Gaunilo argues that this is a poor analogy – there is a real difference between the initial idea and the finished product that we can see and experience!!

Question 14

What are the criticisms of premise 3 of Anselsm’s ontological argument?

Answer 14

Anselm is saying that anything that exists in reality is greater than existing only in the mind. Therefore, something existing in reality would be greater than God.
This is a contradiction, or mistake in reasoning, because God is that than which none greater can be conceived.
To accept the definition of God but reject the conclusion that he exists is a contradiction! It is an illogical, absurd claim to say that God does not exist

Question 15

What is the conclusion of Anselm’s ontological argument version 1?

Answer 15

God must exist in reality.

We are led logically to conclude, a priori, that God exists in reality.
The fool fails to believe only because he hasn’t considered the true definition of God. Once he accepts Anselm’s definition then he has to accept that God exists.

Question 16

What does contingent mean?

Answer 16

relies on something for its existence (an island relies on the sea, the earth etc).

Question 17

What does necessary mean?

Answer 17

not reliant upon anything. Cannot NOT exist.

Question 18

What does Anselm say in response to Gaunilo’s criticisms?

Answer 18

In his work entitled ‘In reply to Gaunilo’ Anselm accuses Gaunilo of misplacing his logic – the ontological argument only works for God.
You cannot compare God to an island because an island is contingent whereas God is utterly different because he has necessary existence.
Anselm adds that he gives the painter analogy simply to show the coherence of his logic.

Question 19

What is the second version of Anselm’s ontological argument (Proslogian 3)

Answer 19

God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
P: It is possible to think of beings that come in and out of existence (contingent beings), and to think of beings that have necessary existence (cannot not exist).
2: A necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
3: Since God is the greatest conceivable being, God has the greatest form of existence (necessary existence).
C: God cannot not exist and cannot be imagined not to exist.

Question 20

What is Aquinas’ criticisms of Anselm’s ontological argument?

Answer 20

Aquinas believed that the ontological argument must be rejected:
• Anselm claims to know what ‘God’ is - but God is completely beyond our understanding. Any idea of God can only be within the limits of human language and knowledge. God’s existence is hidden from us.
• We cannot know that Anselm’s definition of God is correct so we cannot use it as the basis for arguing for his existence.
• Furthermore, it clearly is possible to imagine God’s non-existence - Anselm’s fool clearly manages it!
• The only way to God is indirectly – through examining the world around us.

Question 21

What was Descartes ontological argument?

Answer 21

Like Anselm, Descartes starts with a definition of God…

1. God is a supremely perfect being
2. A supremely perfect being contains supremely perfect characteristics (omni-benevolence, omnipotence…)
3. Existence is an essential characteristic of a supremely perfect being.
4. God’s existence is logically necessary. Therefore, God exists.

Like Anselm, Descartes is saying that a God who did not exist would not be God!

Question 22

Quote by Descartes about his ontological argument?

Answer 22

I cannot conceive God without existence (Descartes, Meditations 5)

Question 23

What was Descartes reasoning?

Answer 23

For Descartes, existence cannot be separated from the essence of God. He gives two examples to illustrate his reasoning:
A triangle must have angles equivalent to 180 degrees. This is the essence of a triangle. Without this it is not a triangle. Without existence, God is not God.
The idea of a mountain cannot be separated from the idea of a valley. Existence cannot be separated from God.

Question 24

Existence as an essential characteristic?

Answer 24

Both Anselm and Descartes claim that existence is an essential characteristic of a ‘supremely perfect’ (‘greatest conceivable’) being.
Note: Descartes’ ontological argument is not on the specification so will not be named in an exam question. However, Kant’s criticisms of ontological arguments are easier to understand if applied to Descartes’ version.

Question 25

What were Kant’s objections to the ontological argument?

Answer 25

The most serious objections to ontological arguments were raised by Immanuel Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) who is widely regarded as one of the most significant thinkers in the history of philosophy. Kant puts forward two main objections, directed towards Descartes’ ontological argument but which apply equally to Anselm’s.

Question 26

Kant’s issue with synthetic statements?

Answer 26

For Kant, to prove God’s existence, you need synthetic (external) evidence. Therefore, the ontological argument mistakenly gives the statement ‘God exists’ the status of an analytic statement when it is actually a synthetic statement.

Question 27

What is kant’s second objection?

Answer 27

Exitsence is not a predicate

Question 28

Is Kant right?

Answer 28

Do I add any detail/information to my description of the ipad when I say it exists? I might describe a tiger as having stripes, claws, sharp teeth etc. Does saying ‘the tiger exists’ add anything to my understanding? If you were to create a list of essential characteristics for a maths teacher, what attributes or qualifications would be helpful? Do you need to add the words ‘and exists’?

Question 29

How does Kant illustrate his point?

Answer 29

Kant asks us to imagine a pile of hundred thalers (a currency of his day) or silver coins. 100 real silver coins do not have any extra coins than 100 imaginary coins, says Kant – the existence of the coins adds nothing to the concept of the coins. He is trying to show that we cannot resolve the issue of whether God exists simply by adding ‘existence’ to God’s different predicates (as Anselm and Descartes have). Linking his two criticisms together, Kant points out that having 100 real silver coins could be verified synthetically and could make a real difference to a person’s life.

Question 30

Christian views against the ontological argument?

Answer 30

Many Christians claim that we don’t need the ontological argument because God can be experienced/proven in other ways such as: • Natural theology (design/cosmological arguments) • Revelation - the experiences recorded in the Bible. • Faith goes beyond reason. There should be no conclusive evidence for or against God’s existence - if God were undeniable, faith would mean nothing. There has to be an epistemic distance (gap in knowledge) between humans and God.

Question 31

Are there any logical fallacies (errors) in the ontological argument?

Answer 31

If existence is not a predicate then the whole argument crumbles. Anselm and Descartes will have made a category error; perhaps existence is in a different category?

Question 32

Is the definition of God appropriate?

Answer 32

Anselm’s definition of God (TTWNGCBC) can be questioned since there is no empirical evidence of God. Anselm doesn’t define what God is, in himself - is he the God of Christian belief? – nor does he define greatness. Can we define God in the way we can define the concept of a triangle, as Descartes suggests? A triangle is a human concept which we can define because we know what we mean by the term ‘triangle’ ... but we don’t have that knowledge when we define God. Remember: Aquinas argued that God is completely beyond our understanding and thus we are unable to use a definition of God as the basis upon which to argue for his existence.

Question 33

Can anyone understand the definition of God?

Answer 33

Anselm recognised that people do doubt God’s existence and that atheists do not understand the meaning of the word God nor the definition of God. They will not therefore be convinced by the argument - you need faith to grasp the argument.

Question 34

Are the premises true?

Answer 34

As deductive arguments, ontological arguments claim to establish the existence of God a priori (without relying on observation, evidence or experience). If we accept their premises as true, the conclusion follows necessarily. Many theists insist that they are completely convincing since logical proofs (like in mathematics) are difficult to contradict.

Question 35

What was Anselm’s intention?

Answer 35

Many people, including theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), argue that Anselm did not intend his ontological argument to be a proof of God’s existence. Rather, he intended it to help him explore and understand his own faith better and to help other believers gain a deeper understanding of God. He points to the evidence: that Anselm’s work is framed at the beginning and end as a prayer, expressing wonder at a God who is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’.

Question 36

What knowledge can believers gain?

Answer 36

Does the OA help believers to understand/explain their faith in a rational, logical way? Is it capable of strengthening their faith? For example, if we accept that existence is part of God’s essence and that God cannot not exist, we can reason that God is: • A being unlike any other (his existence does not stem from an external cause.... he is necessary) • Unlimited • Eternal (without beginning or end) • Supremely perfect with the perfect amount of all qualities (power, love, wisdom)