OA

Question 1

What knowledge does the OA utilise?

What does it mean if it’s analytic and deductive?

Answer 1

Use of apriori knowledge/logic.

Deductive as if premises are true, the conclusion/proof MUST be true. Analytic as it based on definitions

Question 2

How does Anselm use a proof of contradiction? What is it? Why is it reductio ad absurdum?

Answer 2

Makes a statement then demonstrates its logical contradiction to prove something else:

1. God is something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought-of
2. Things exist either in MIND or MIND + REALITY
3. It is greater to exists in MIND + REALITY in MIND only

If one assumes that God exists in mind-only, P1 would contradict P3. It is therefore absurd to try and imagine/develop a world where God does not exist or in the very least not believe in him

Question 3

Anselm’s argument takes two parts. What are they?

Answer 3

• Monologion: Directed at atheists and agnostics in the hope that the rationality of his argument would help atheists to believe and to show that atheism cannot be coherently maintained
• Proslogion: Written in the form of a prayer as it does not need to prove God’s existence as established in the Monologion. Written from the perspective of someone who has faith as Anselm argues that it is only with faith that we can hope for a true understanding of the existence and nature of God

Question 4

How does Guanilo criticise Anselm?

Why does it also reductio ad absurdum?

Answer 4

Mutatis Mutandis: By substitution of terms. Gaunilo substitutes God for ‘island’ to show that the logic of the argument can be used to define anything into existence.

Gaunilo’s is also a reductio ad absurdum because it tries to show that to deny the existence of this island is a logical absurdity.

Question 5

How does Anselm respond to Guanilo?

Answer 5

• Islands are contingent whereas God is not as a necessary being (similar to C.A). Islands can appear then disappear yet this is not the case for God as he cannot not exist.
• Contingent things may be added to, necessary things may not, so we can always add to the ‘greatest’ island to make it greater. If you can make something greater, it is the not greatest to begin with

Question 6

How does Mackie criticise Anselm?

Answer 6

Anselm criticises Atheists’ foolishness as by stating the non-existence of God, they are contradicting the definition of God that they have agreed to. Yet this fool, however, can avoid this by simply stating that he can conceive or think of a being ‘than which no greater can be conceived’ but that he disagrees that this being exists. This weakens Anselm’s argument.

Question 7

What is Descartes logical argument?

Answer 7

1. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being;
2. Existence is a predicate or quality of a supremely perfect being;
3. A supremely perfect being exists.

This is God

Question 8

Expand Descartes logical argument

Answer 8

• Descartes argues that to state that God does not exist would be self-contradictory as existence is a predicate of the supremely perfect being
• There is an objective necessity that connects God to existence, just as there is an objective necessity connecting a mountain to a valley: you simply cannot have one without the other

Question 9

How would you use Aquinas in AO2?

Answer 9

Mainly criticises Anselm yet can be used generally too.

Criticises Anselm’s use of apriori knowledge and claims that you need experience to see proof - this is why he developed the Cosmological Argument!

We, as weak and limited humans, cannot have such a clear understanding of God to allow us to believe that the statement ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction. Therefore he rejects reduction ad absurdum because to do so, you have to initially assume that God exists and Aquinas argued that we have to argue to God’s existence from observation.