Arguments Using Reason

Question 1

What thinker came up with the Ontological Argument?

Answer 1

Anselm

Question 2

What is Anselm’s definition of God?

Answer 2

The Greatest Conceivable Being
OR
A being who is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’
(TTWNGCBC)

Question 3

Explain the Ontological Argument

Answer 3

• Consider the idea of God - the Greatest Conceivable Being.
• The GCB could not be the GCB if he only existed in the mind, because a greater being could exist in reality.
• Therefore God must exist in reality.
• Even a fool who does not believe in Go, must have an idea in their mind to be able to reject it.

Question 4

What kind of argument is this - a priori or a posteriori

Answer 4

A priori because it is based on thought - not someone’s experience or senses.

Question 5

What is Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument?

Answer 5

He objects this argument by using a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ (reducing it to absurdity). He replaces God with the perfect island. His conclusion is that if you can prove the existence of anything with this argument there must be a problem with it.
CA - the best possible island is contingent, whereas God is necessary.

Question 6

How could Anselm respond to Gaunilo’s argument called ‘On behalf of the fool.”

Answer 6

Anselm could respond saying that his argument does not apply to the best possible island because it’s contingent while God is necessary.

Question 7

What is Anselm’s second argument?

Answer 7

• The idea of God is a being that cannot be surpassed in greatness - the GCB
• The GCB cannot exist contingently as it would be even greater if it had a necessary existence. A logically necessary being is one whose non-existence is impossible.
• Therefore God necessarily has to exist.
• This improves his first argument as it shows why this argument doesn’t work on an island.

Question 8

Name the strengths and weaknesses of the Ontological argument

Answer 8

For - the argument works if you understand necessity. 2 + 2 is necessarily 4. If you have God then necessarily you have to have existence.
- The argument works when it comes to God as he is unique unlike a contingent island - God is necessary.
Against - different people have different ideas of God meaning that who’s version of God have we proved exists.
- The argument says that once we understand God, we know he exists but is it really possible for humans to understand God. He is so complex that it could be argued that he is impossible to fully understand.
- We cannot have knowledge about what exists without some existence. Talking about what is God is always a posteriori whilst the ontological argument is a priori.
- It is not possible to move from thought to reality - we cannot imagine things into existence - BPI, a unicorn etc