onto as its argument

Question 1

Strengths of ontological arguments

Answer 1

Ontological arguments are usually deductively valid so if the premises are true, it is a sound arguments and gods existence will be proven a priori.

Question 2

Weaknesses
kant and russel- existence isn’t a predicate

Schopenhauer- begging question

empiricist- only reason no experience in arguments

Answer 2

Kant and Russel argue that saying something exist isn’t a property/ predicate of that thing If I say my car… then I am implying that my car exist. If I finish the sentence with … is blue, then I have given you more information properties about my car but If I finish with exists then I’ve not given any additional information properties about my car.

Schopenhauer calls ontological argument a conjuring trick because the conclusion is concealed within the premises only to be revealed at the end as if by surprise. In other words ontological arguments beg the question because they assume the very thing they are trying to prove a perfect god exist.

Ontological argument for the existence of god are rationalist arguments they are criticised by empiricist philosophers who claim that gods existence must be established via experience and not by reason alone.