ontologial argumen descartes and humes fork

Question 1

whats the Malcom argument (expands on anselm) - being with contingent existence

Answer 1

Dependant on other things for existence
Can conievably not exist
Cause of existence and can cease to exist e.g animals, plants

Question 2

whats Malcoms being with necessary existence

Answer 2

Dependant on nothing for existence
It must exist as it cant be concieved as not existing
No cause for existence and cant cease to exist

Question 3

whats Malcom’s arguement of impossible existence

Answer 3

God is understood as the greatest possible being, therefore his existence must either be impossible or necessary. If he didnt exist then he could never come into existence as the greatest possible being cannot be created as the thing that created God would therefore be greater, contradicting our concept of god. So if god does not exist then he cant ever exist in any world.

Question 4

whats Malcom’s necessary existence

Answer 4

God cannot cease to exist either and must exist in every possible world as he is the greatest possible being - his existence is necessary if he does exist

Question 5

whats Malcom’s argument - why God’s existence is necessary

Answer 5

Something should only be seen as impossible if the concept is self-contradictory. If somethings existence is impossible we cannot concieve a world where it exists (a circle square) If there’s no contradiction in imagining the existence of god in any possible world, means god’s existence isn’t impossible and must be necessary.

Question 6

whats the fallacy of equivocation

Answer 6

-when the meaning of a word changes during an argument

Question 7

how does malcoms argument fall to the fallacy equivocation

Answer 7

the meaning of ‘neccesary’ changes between his premise 5, 8 and the conclusion - in premise 5 and 8, malcom talks about necessary existence in the sense of a property that something does or doesnt have however in the conclusion he changes from god having a property of necessary existence to it being necessary truth that god exists. the concept of god may have the property of necessary existence but it doesnt show that its a necessary truth he exists. we can say if god exists, then he has the property of necessary existence, but still deny that god exists necessarily