Arguments For The Existence Of God: Anselm's Ontological Argument Flashcards
Anselm’s argument is “a priori”, what does this mean?
An argument that relies on logic
Anselm’s argument is “deductive”, what does this mean?
An argument that aims to give certain proof. If the premises are true then the conclusion must be true
So if A=B and B=C then A=C
Anselm’s argument is an “analytic statement”, what does this mean? (+ example)
They are based on logic and true by definition.
Example: a bachelor is an unmarried man
Anselm’s argument contains subjects and predicates, what do these mean? (+ example)
Subject - who/what the sentence is about
Predicate - information about the subject
Example: Cat sat on the mat (The ‘cat’ is the subject and ‘sat on the mat’ is the predicate)
Anselm’s argument contains necessary truths, what are these? (+ example)
Statements that could possibly not be false
Example: a circle has no sides
Anselm’s argument contains necessary things, what are these? (+ example)
Things that cannot possibly fail to exist
Example: the laws of maths according to some mathematicians and scientist
Explain Anselm’s Proslogium 2
- God is ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’ as he contain all the possible qualities and even fools can acknowledge there is a God seen by Psalm 14:1.
- It is greater to actually exist then just exist in the mind as if God didn’t exist a greater being could be conceived therefore God must exist
What is the quote from Psalm 14:1?
‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God’
What is Gaunilo’s argument ‘on behalf of the fool’?
- Gaunilo’s argument follows the same structure as Anselm’s substituting God for a lost island
- There maybe a lost island that is the greatest island conceivable in the mind
- As Anselm says it is better to exist in reality than the mind, the lost island must truly exist in reality
Explain Anselm’s Responsio and Proslogium 3
- Anselm argued that there is a difference between necessity and contingent in his Proslogium 3. A necessary being is a being that must exist whereas a contingent being is dependent on something else for it’s existence
- Anselm defines God as a necessary being where as an island is contingent therefore Gaunilo’s argument is illogical and ridiculous to use as a comparison
Kant’s Criticism 1: Existence is not a predicate
What does this mean in relation to Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- Kant said a real predicate is something that gives information about a subject.
- The cat sat on the mat is a real predicate yet saying the cat exists gives no more information on the cat
- Kant used the Prussian currency (Thalers) saying that it was possible to describe the appearance of Thalers but having 100 Thalers or not having 100 Thalers doesn’t matter when explaining it
(Remember: Kant’s criticism weren’t directed at Anselm but they can be applied)
Kant’s Criticism 2: Something cannot be defined into existence
What does this mean in relation to Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- Kant accepted that necessary existence may belong to the concept of God but saying he exists doesn’t mean it exists
- Kant argued that arguments about the existence of God had to be synthetic not analytic and had to be proved empirically and could therefore not be deductive in nature
What are some strengths about Anselm’s argument?
- It is a deductive argument meaning it gives absolute proof if it works
- Independent of evidence from human observation protecting itself from possibly unreliable evidence
- Anselm’s definition claiming God is limitless for many makes good sense
What are some weaknesses about Anselm’s argument?
- Kant’s challenges suggest that it does not work in either of it’s forms
- Arguments about existence need to be empirically based
- Aquinas believed you cannot define God as defining him limits him therefore the Ontological Argument collapses
How does Anselm’s argument offer proof for the existence of God?
- Nature of his argument being a priori and deductively reasoned mean that if it is true then it does provide proof for the existence of God
- Some claim it was proof in terms of a faith based acceptance
- Barth: Anselm intended it as a mediation of religious experiences rather than actual proof (solidifying his own belief that God exists)
How does Anselm’s argument fail to offer proof for the existence of God?
- Anselm’s argument being debatable by Kant shows it cannot be deductive
- More of a confirmation of proog
- Responsio shows that Anselm was trying to prove that God did exist
How is Anselm’s argument valuable for religious faith?
- Argument works for those who are already theists
- Shows to religious believers that faith is rational
- Follows H.H Price argument in believe that and believe in
How is Anselm’s argument invaluable for religious faith?
- If it fails as proof then it’s value to faith is limited
- Fideists rejects the use of rational arguments to prove the existence of God as it devalues faith
- Barth rejected attempts to prove God’s existence through reason as God can only be known by revelation not logic
Finish the quotation from Proslogium: I do not seek to understand so that I may believe…
but I believe so that I may understand. (EXTRA: what is more, I believe that unless I do believe I shall not understand)
