Ontological argument

Question 1

1st form of the ontological argument

Answer 1

Anselm (Prosologian 2)
premise 1- God is ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than the mind alone
P3. God exists in the mind
C1. Therefore, God exists in reality

uses illustration of a painter having an idea of what they will paint in their mind before painting it in reality.
-> painting becomes more complete when it exists in the mind+ body so shows existence is a property which makes smth greater

Question 2

2nd form

Answer 2

Anselm (Prosologian 3)
P1. God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
P2. A being that exists necessarily is greater than a being that exists contingently
P3. If God existed contingently, a greater being could be conceived which contradicts P1.
C1. Therefore, God must exist necessarily.
C2. Therefore, God exists.

Question 3

Third form

Answer 3

Decartes (Meditations)
P1. God is perfect (‘a supremely perfect being’)
P2. Existence is a perfection
C. Therefore, God exists.

argued that the foundation of knowledge was intuition
we intuitively know a triangle has 3 sides, bc it’s impossible to have a triangle in our mind not having three sides.
Similarly, we cannot conceive of a supremely perfect being separated from existence
-intuition shows God exists

Question 4

Criticism 1 of ontological argument

Answer 4

Gaunilo
1. Rejects the premise that the greatest conceivable being exists in the mind as God is beyond our understanding so cannot be conceivable in our mind
-> supported by Aquinas- argues God’s nature is beyond our understanding + Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought” (summa theologica)
-> ppl may have different understandings of God

Question 5

Counter for criticism 1

Answer 5

Peter van Inwagen- Anselm doesn’t accept we understand God fully
Our limited understanding of God is enough to justify attributing the name “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” to God.

Question 6

Criticism 2

Answer 6

Gaunilo- ‘perfect island’ analogy
He argued that the reasoning used to prove God’s existence could also be applied to the concept of a perfect island, which, according to the ontological logic, must exist bc it’s the greatest conceivable island. Gaunilo claimed that this absurd conclusion demonstrates a flaw in argument, as merely conceiving of something as perfect doesn’t prove its existence in reality

Question 7

Counter to criticism 2

Answer 7

Gaunilo misunderstands the argument
It is greater to be non-contigent , island depends on smth to exist e.g. Water surrounding it
So cannot be considered as the greatest conceivable

Anselm response
island is not ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived.’ While one might imagine an island that they consider ‘perfect’, it’s still possible to think of ways to improve it, therefore making it greater.