ontological argument

Question 1

terms
a priori- independant of sense of experience- non empiricle- logical
deductive- if premise is true conclusion must be true.
conclusion drawn based on premise.
e.g.
a=b
b=c
therefore a=c
analytic- based on logic. true by definition
nesessary truths- statements that cannot be false e.g.circle has no sides
nesessary things- things that cannot fail to exist e.g. laws of maths

Question 2

anselms argument
- gods existence can be deducted from his definition
- nesessary truth- god exists- predicate of exists in realtion to god
- proslogium 2 and 3

Question 3

prologium 2
- god is that than which nothing greater can be conceived- being posses all conceivable qualitys
- differencebetween having a concept in the mind and knowing it eists in reality
- if god only existed in the mind then a greater being could be conceived
- god cannot only exist in the mind
- god exists in both mind and reality
-

Answer 3

guanilo- on behalf of the fool
- follows same argument but god is a island
- island is that which nothing greater can be conceived
- greater to exists in reality than mind
- if exists only in mind that greater can be conceived
- so island exists both in mind and reality

Question 4

proslogium 3 and the response
- anselm points out difference between necessitty and contingency
- nesessary being is whollly independant it is necessay in itself
- contingent being is dependant on something else for its existence
- greater to be a nececcary being
- if god is contingent than greatercan be conceived but if he is necessary than noting greater can
- therefore god is necessary
- also points out difference between an island and god
- island is contingent god is not- they are not the same
-

Question 5

criticism- kant
kant doesnt reply to anselm- challanges descartes form butstill applys
existence is not a predicate
- predicate is sometihng that gives information about a subject e.g. cat sat on the mat
- going on to say cat exists says nothing about the cat
- thalers exmaple
- possible to describe the appearcne and feel of money
- saying they exists says nothing actually about them
- no difference between concept of 100 quid and 100 quid existing

Answer 5

something cannot be defined into existence
- kant accepts that necessary exitence beliogns o concept of god
- doesnt mean gthat god exists
- the fact that something could exists doesnt mean it actually does

Question 6

evaluation
strenghts
- deductive argument. if premises work then conc is true. as opposed to inductive arguments
- independance from human observation protects it from possible unreliable evidnece
- anselms definition claims that godis limitless for many- so if thereis a god his definition makes good sense

Answer 6

weaknesses
- kants challangessuggest that its doesnt work in either forms
- arguments about existence need to be empirically based
- aquainas and other challange anselms defintion of god. humans cannot knowthe nature of god and attempt limits him
- if this is case then whole argument collapses- if we cannot form a definitoin of god then we cannot rpove existence in definition

Question 7

argument as proof
proof of
- a priori, anlytic, deductive argument so premise aretrue means conc is- prooves existence of god. many scholoars claim it is valid
- some caim proof as is a faith based acceptance
- karl barth claims anselm never intended it as proof. consisted of anselms mdiation of religious expericne
- some thing is is simply mediation on nature of god intended to assure monks faith was reasonable

Answer 7

not proof
- most agree that mostit shows is if god exists then he existrs necessarity. all about if. 2+2=4 is analytic no disputing it. if anselsm argumetns were true there would be no doubt
- not what is normally thought of s proof, more of a confirmation of a beleif somebdy already has
- issued as response to gaunilo shows that it was an attemot to proove god
- prefsceto proslogium also suggests he saw it a proof

Question 8

value for religious faith
postitive
- argument works for those who are already theists
- shows beleif is rational
- reasoned belief that reinforces belief in

Answer 8

nehative side
- fails as a proof, religious faith is limited
- fideists reject the usecof rational arguments to prove existence of god. reliance on such devalsues faith
- karl barth rejects attempts to prove xitence through reason
god can only be known through revalation
claimed anselm never itened proslogium to be seen as argument for existenceof god
was trying to understand the god he beleived in.