ontological argument

Question 1

what does the ontological argument claim about the proposition ‘god exists’?

Answer 1

it is a priori and deductive - it can be known to be true w/o sense experience

the subject ‘god’ contains the predicate ‘exists’ so god must exist

Question 2

what does the argument claim about the existence of god?

Answer 2

god’s existence is necessary not contingent

Question 3

summary of anselm’s argument

Answer 3

p1. god is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived

p2. this definition even a fool understands in his mind, even if he doesn’t understand it in reality

p3. it is greater to exist in the mind and reality and just in the mind

p4. if god only existed in the mind, i could think of something greater; a god who also exists in reality

c. therefore, in order to be the greatest conceivable being, god must exist both in the mind and in reality

Question 4

what was gaunilo’s criticism?

Answer 4

used a parody of the argument - gave ontological arg for existence of a ‘perfect lost island’ ttwngcbc…

p1. it is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island
p2. it is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind
p3. therefore the most perfect and real lost island must exist in reality

island cannot exist, so gaunilo argues ont. arg. fails; reductio ad absurdism; ont arg seemingly justifies endless number of perfect objects

Question 5

what was anselm’s reply to gaunilo? (responsio + proslogium 3)

Answer 5

p1. to be perfect, an island would have to be ‘an island than which no greater can be conceived’

p2. an island ttwngcbc would have to exist necessarily, since a contingent island would be less perfect that an island that existed necessarily

p.3 but islands are contingent, so cannot exist necessarily

c. therefore the logic of the argument related to a perfect island cannot be applied to god

+ definitions of perfect island differ

Question 6

why is god necessary?

Answer 6

god is the greatest conceivable being, the greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived to not exist. Therefore god, and god a,lone, possesses necessary existence - god cannot not exist

Question 7

what is kant’s first criticism?

Answer 7

criticises descartes’ ontological argument

says existence is not a real predicate. predicate is something that gives u new knowledge about a thing. e.g. gold thalers - describing their weight, smell etc = predicates, saying they exist adds no new knowledge/value

no difference between concept of god and concept of god who exists. can only know through sense experience; logic gets u nowhere

Question 8

what is kant’s second criticism?

Answer 8

can accept the proposition that ‘existing necessarily’ = part of god’s definition, doesn’t follow through that god actually exists

anselm claims ‘god exists necessarily’ = analytic.

‘a unicorn is a horse with a horn’ = analytic, true by definition, doesn’t follow through that actually exists.

further, way of knowing analytic statement –> existence = through sense experience, e.g. bachelor = unmarried man, vs unicorn

same applies to god

Question 9

what are the strengths of anselms argument

Answer 9

1. is deductive, doesn’t rely on unreliable sense experience
2. can be taken from karl barth’s perspective, that anselm had religious experience that prompted argument, so true for those with faith

Question 10

what are the weaknesses?

Answer 10

1. most scholars reject it based on kant’s criticisms
2. starting point = definition, some would argue to define god is to limit him

Question 11

status as proof

Answer 11

if the premises of arg are true, then is proof of god’s existence

Question 12

is it a proof?

Answer 12

disputed - some scholars claim works, others (e.g. Kant) dont

for most, kant’s objections show that the argument is not a proof; shows that IF god exists, he will exist necessarily

if was really a proof, would be no doubt

some would argue that is faith-based proof in barth’s interpretation

Question 13

in what two ways does anselm argue a thing can be perceived?

Answer 13

a. when the word signifying it is conceived
b. when the thing itself is understood

Question 14

how does this apply to the fools statement that ‘there is no god’?

Answer 14

a. the words in statement can be understood
b. but once u understand that god = ttwngcbc, must then understand that god exists

anselm is claiming that atheist does not have an adequate understanding of god

Question 15

problems w/ anselms argument about the fools statement

Answer 15

if the atheist doesnt have adequate idea of god, what is to stop atheist from saying anselm’s idea of god just as inadequate, as he invented it?

Question 16

what is barth’s argument?

Answer 16

that anselm’s argument about faith, not logic

at end of chapter 1 of proslogium1, anselm says “I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand”
- belief comes before reasoning

anselm’s arg based on religious experience in which god revealed himself as ttwncbc

if god could be proved by logic, wouldnt need gods revelation, would purely be object of knowledge

Question 17

what contradicts barth’s view?

Answer 17

anselm’s prayer directed towards the athiest fool in psalm 14:4. if arg not intended to give logical proof, why does A go to sm trouble?

in preface of proslogium, anselm says looking for proof

why else would bother to respond to gaunilo? - arguing abt logic, not faith

for anselm, ‘faith seeking understanding’ means “an active love of god seeking a deeper knowledge of god”

Question 18

hwo does the arg have value for those who believe in god already

Answer 18

they are more likely to accept it as logical proof

Question 19

why do fideists disagree with logical proof of god

Answer 19

in fideism, faith comes before all else - if we could prove god’s existence via logic, faith would lose all value