theme 1D/E the ontological argument

Question 1

intro - the ontological argument

Answer 1

• deductive argument
• a priori, prior to evidence or experience
• based on logic and reason
• point to a conclusion which is logically inescapable
• analytic

Question 2

P1 Anselm

Answer 2

• Anselm had strong faith, he believed that God existed
• ‘the fool has said in his heart, there is no God’
• structured his work of the ontological argument in 3 chapters, known as proslogions,

Question 3

P2 proslogion 1

Answer 3

• presented his definition of God which stated - ‘God is that of which nothing greater can be conceived’
• he believed that there was nothing greater than God

Question 4

P3 proslogion 2

Answer 4

• developed his definition in which he explained that anything which exists in reality is better than what exists in the mind simply because it is real
• used the example of a painter and a painting analogy, before a painting is created the artist has it in his mind, however the painting produced in reality is better than what existed in the mind as it exists
• he said that if God exists in the mind then the God in the mind is not as great as the God that exists in reality

Question 5

P4 proslogion 3

Answer 5

• Anselm suggested that God has a uniquely necessary existence
• he is defined in such a way that it is impossible to conceive of him not existing (God cannot not exist)
• God as an infinitely perfect being, is not limited in or by time, therefore the possibilities of God having ever come to exist or ever ceasing to exist are excluded, and God’s non-existence is rendered impossible

Question 6

P5 Descartes

Answer 6

• developed Anselm’s ontological argument by agreeing with proslogion 3 that God must have necessary existence in order to be the greatest being, if God didn’t have necessary existence as one of his predicates, this would mean he would have been created by another being, meaning God would not be the most powerful or greatest
• he defined God as a supremely perfect being, that possesses all perfections and lacks in flaws (eg omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience)

Question 7

P6 Descartes analogy

Answer 7

• he used the analogy of become a triangle
• existence is part of the definition of God in the same way that 3 angles and 3 sides is part of the definition of a triangle
• if we think of a triangle we necessarily think of a shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles that add up to 180°
• in the same way it is impossible to think about God without the attribute of existence, it is a necessary perfection
• so, God has necessary existence as one of his attributes, God alone possesses this perfection, therefore God exists

Question 8

P7 Malcolm

Answer 8

• rejects Descartes and Anselm’s point that existence has to be a predicate of God
• you can’t just add the concept of existence onto a definition of something
• however, he does agree with proslogion 3 that God is the greatest being
• he argues that God may be a limitless being, if he did have limits, he would not be the greatest being that could be imagined and such being would not be worthy of worship
• god’s existence is either necessary or impossible, if he didn’t always exist and was caused by something else then he would be limited
• therefore if God does exist, then he necessarily exists

Question 9

different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments for God’s existence

Answer 9

• belief in God being omnibenevolent and omnipotent contradicted by the flaws in design (evil, suffering, natural disasters)
• the nature of God may be an assumption
• no empirical evidence of God

Question 10

different religious views on the nature of God do not impact on arguments for God’s existence

Answer 10

• the basis of the ontological argument is that God is rhetorical greatest being, aligns with Christian belief
• belief that God is eternal and has always existed impacts the cosmological argument as it means he wouldn’t have had to be caused
• belief that God is omnibenevolent impacts teleological argument as outlines how much care he puts into creation
• belief that God is omnipotent impacts the ontological argument, Anselm ‘God is that of which nothing greater can be conceived’

Question 11

a priori arguments / the ontological argument for God’s existence are persuasive

Answer 11

• the argument is valid, if we accept the premises then the conclusion is correct
• the arguments suggests that to say God does not exist is a logical contradiction, the argument uses the rules of language
• a priori arguments lead to inescapable conclusions, therefore it is persuasive
• the argument will confirm the fate of those who already believe, Anselm was a believer, he didn’t create this as a way to convince atheist
• it doesn’t depend on experience, experience can be interpreted in different ways and is unreliable, the ontological argument is based on words and meanings which are fixed, it is a logical argument
• the argument depends on the definition of God, it is generally accepted that God has certain attributes
• in response to Guanilo, islands do not have intrinsic maximum

Question 12

a priori arguments / the ontological argument for God’s existence are not persuasive

Answer 12

• we tend to base arguments on experience, we are more likely to be convinced / persuaded by evidence, a prosteriori arguments have been more popular throughout history because they are based on experience
• if the premises are found to be weak or untrue, then as an apriori argument, the conclusion will also be weak or untrue
• just because you can imagine this being doesn’t mean it exists, we can define God as a being necessary existence, but that doesn’t mean that he actually exists, for example, unicorns
• Anselm makes a giant leap from a definition of God to say that God exist exists, you cannot define something into existence, we could include existence in any definition (Guanilo)
• the argument rests on us accepting Anselm’s definition of God, even Aquinas rejects this argument suggest suggesting that we cannot define God because God is a mystery
• the argument assumes that God already exists, this was not intended as a logical argument for non-believers, rather logical reasoning for those sorority believe
• Guanilo: can define an island, doesn’t mean it exists
• Kant: existence is not a predicate
• lack of empirical evidence of God