the ontological argument

Question 1

what kind of argument is the ontological argument

Answer 1

• a priori
• deductive
• analytic

Question 2

what is Anselm’s ontological argument based on

Answer 2

• it is based on anselms definition of god
• the proposition that god exists is a priori and deductive. it contains the predicate exists in relation to god so god must exist. it’s a necessary truth
• anselms argument falls into two parts: proslogium 2 and proslogium 3

Question 3

what is proslogium 2

Answer 3

• god is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’
• quoting from Psalms 14:1 anselm showed how even a fool could understand god
• there is a difference between existing in the mind and existing in real life
• if god only existed in the mind then a greater being could be conceived
• therefore god exists in the mind and real life

Question 4

what is gaunilos response to anselms argument

Answer 4

• gaunilos argument followed the same structure as anselms, replacing god with an island

Question 5

what is anselms 3rd proslogium and response to gaunilo

Answer 5

• where he pointed to the distinction between necessity and contingency
• a necessary being would be a being whose non existence would be contradictory
• a contingent being is not necessary
• it is greater to be necessary than contingent
• therefore god must be necessary
• this is the difference between an island and god

Question 6

what are Kant’s two criticisms of the ontological argument

Answer 6

• existence is not a predicate
• something cannot be defined into existence

Question 7

what is Kant’s argument that existence is not a predicate

Answer 7

• a real predicate is something that gives information about something
  
  • the cat sat on the mat – sat on the mat gives
    info about the cat
• saying that the cat exists gives no further info about the cat

Question 8

what is Kant’s argument that something cannot be defined into existence

Answer 8

• kant accepted that necessary existence belongs to the existence of god
• but this does not mean he actually exists
• the fact that something could exists does not mean it actually does exist

Question 9

strengths of the ontological argument

Answer 9

• it is a deductive argument so if it works it gives absolute proof as opposed to other arguments
• its independence from evidence from human observation protects it from the possibly unreliable evidence

Question 10

weaknesses of the ontological argument

Answer 10

• kants criticisms show that it doesnt work in either form
• arguments about existence need to be empirically based
• anthropomorphic

Question 11

arguments that the ontological argument has status as proof of god

Answer 11

• it is deductive
• some claim it is proof in that it is a faith based acceptance
• some theologians think it was simply a meditation on the nature of god that was intended to assure fellow monks that faith was reasonable

Question 12

arguments that the ontological does not prove the existence of god

Answer 12

• most scholars agree with kant that the most it shows is that if god exists he exists necessarily. noone disputes that 2+2=4
• the fact that he issued a response suggests that gaunilo understood it as an attempt to prove the existence of god
• it is more of a confirmation of a belief someone already has

Question 13

arguments that the ontological argument does have value for religious faith

Answer 13

• the argument works for those who are already theists
• it shows belief to be rational
• the reasoned belief that god exists reinforces and supports belief in god

Question 14

arguments that the ontological argument does not have value for religious faith

Answer 14

• fideists reject rational arguments
• if it fails as proof then its value to religious faith is limited