Are There Logical Fallacies In The Ontological Argument Which Can't Be Overcome?

Question 1

A possible ? ? in the ontological argument might be one of “? ?”. If, as Kant suggests, existence isn’t a ?, then it can’t be ascribed to God as one of his characteristics.

Answer 1

Logical fallacy.
Category error.
Predicate.

Question 2

Norman Malcolm accepted that Kant was right to say that ? existence isn’t a predicate. However, he believed that the idea of God’s ? existence, from the second formulation of ? argument, could still be sued to provide a successful ontological argument.

Answer 2

Contingent.
Necessary.
Anselm’s.

Question 3

Malcolm argued that in order to be God, God must have ? existence. If God exists then he ? in this eternal necessary way.

Answer 3

Necessary.

Exists.

Question 4

Malcolm’s argument takes the following steps:

1) If God doesn’t ? today, then he never can and never will.
2) If God does exist, then he must exist ?
3) God’s ? is therefore either impossible or necessary.
4) God’s existence isn’t ?
5) Given that God’s existence isn’t impossible, it must be ?

Answer 4

Exist.
Necessarily.
Existence.
Impossible.
Necessary.

Question 5

Malcolm’s argument rests on our acceptance from the start that God’s ? isn’t the same as other kinds of existence. For critics, this is the same as asking us to believe in God as a ? of the argument, before setting out on the ?, so that the argument becomes circular and can be reduced to saying, “God exists ?, therefore God exists necessarily”.

Answer 5

Existence.
Premise.
Reasons.
Necessarily.

Question 6

Many ? would want to claim that God exists in ?, whether we believe in him or not.

Answer 6

Theists.

Reality.