Ontological Argument

Question 1

Describe Anselm’s ontological argument

Answer 1

• Based on the claim that God’s existence can be deduced from his definition
• Once God can be correctly defined, there can be no doubt he exists
  It has its basis in thought, claiming that:
• The proposition ‘god exists’ is a priori/deductive as it can be known to be true without reference to experience, and it proves the existence of God from the understanding of the attributes of the nature of the goid of classical theism
• In the proposition ‘god exists’ the subject ‘god’ contains the predicate ‘exists’ - therefore god must exist and god’s existence is necessary rather than contingent
• B y thinking logically about God’s nature and the implications of it, we can deduce that there must be such a god: god must exist because it is in his nature to exist, and it is impossible for him not to exist as a non0existent god is a logical contradiction
• Supporters of the OA therefore claim that God exists by definition as existence is a defining characteristic of God therefore he cannot possibly be non existent

Question 2

Describe the first form of God’s existence - God has existence in reality

Answer 2

• Anselm began by defining God as ‘ a ebbing by which nothing greater can be conceived’ - it is possible to think of something greater than a mere idea - if God is the greatest he must really exist separately from people’s imaginations, in reality
• Therefore, the concept of God must include actual existence: it is better to exist in reality and we cannot think of anything greater than god, so he must actually exist
• God is the greatest possible being - if God exists in the mind alone then a greater being could be conceived to exist both in the mind and in reality - this being would be greater than God, and because god cannot exist only as an idea in the mind, he must exist in both
• “you exist so truly, my lord, that you cannot be thought not to exist’

Question 3

Describe Gaunilo’s criticisms of the first form of the argument

Answer 3

• Gaunilo challenged the first form of Anselm’s argument by saying that by using Anselm’s argument you could deduce anything you wanted into existence on the grounds that it has superlative qualities - Gaunilo used th analogy of the ‘greatest island’ . He said it was wrong to go on and say that ‘since it is more excellent not to be own udnerstanding alone but to exist in both understanding and reality, and for this reason the island must exist’ as we cannot move from a definition if God to a claim that he exists as it is an illogical leap
• On behalf of the fool: ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no god’ - gaunilo also argues that the fact that ‘the fool’ dismisses the existence of God shows that there are different ways of understanding God, meaning Anselm is wrong to say that we all understand God as the greatest conceivable being
• the argument invites parody: parallel arguments claiming to prove the existence of any perfect thing can be constructed - similar arguments for ‘perfect things’ aren’t sound as they don’t exist , showing that the logic of the ontological argument is flawed

Question 4

Describe Anselm’s response to the island criticism by Gaunilo

Answer 4

• The main issue with gaunilo’s objection is the definition of perfect: perfection is subjective therefore there will be disagreements about what makes an island perfect
• Another issue is with the idea of a ‘perfect island’ - technically, a perfect island could be any piece of land perfectly surrounded by water
• Anselm therefore argues that this line of reasoning doesn’t work for everyday objects - he isn’t concerned with contingent/temporal things, but rather a necessary being

Question 5

Describe how Anselm developed his response to Gaunilo into the 2nd form of the argument: God as the greatest conceivable being must have the greatest kind of existence

Answer 5

• Anselm replied with a second, stronger form of the OA
• God as the greatest conceivable being must have the greatest kind of existence - to have no beginning/end and be dependent on nothing is the greatest kind, and this is necessary existence
• Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence as contingent existence has a beginning and an end

Question 6

Describe Anselm’s repsonse to Gaunilo’s criticism ‘On behalf of the fool’

Answer 6

• Anselm is aware that the existence of God can/will be denied by an atheist
• In response, he cites: ‘the fool has said in his heart, there is no God’. The fool here is the atheist, who Anselm argues says that there is no God, which is impossible
• Anselm says the fool says this because he has failed to grasp the full implications of the concept of God - if he understood god as that which nothing greater can be conceived, it would be impossible to deny his existence
• To deny existence, the atheist must have a concept of God - it is then only a short step to recognising the impossibility of denying the existence of such a being

Question 7

Describe Descartes’ presentation of the OA

Answer 7

• Descartes defined God as a ‘supremely perfect being’ meaning he must possess all the perfect predicates, like omnipotence
• In addition, he argued that God must possess the perfection of existence - Descartes argued this therefore shows that the idea of a god which doesn’t exist is a self-contradiction
• ‘It is quite evident that existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than the fact its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle’

Question 8

Describe Kant’s objection to Descartes’ presentation of the ontological argument

Answer 8

• he argued that existence is not a real predicate as it adds nothing new to the concept of a thing - Kant invited us to imagine 100 Thales (coins)
• Imagining this means that we can describe the predicates of Thales, and each new predicate adds to our understanding
• However, going on to say that they possess the predicate of existence adds nothing to our understanding of them - there is no difference between the concept and existence of Thales

Question 9

Describe Kant’s second criticism of Descartes

Answer 9

• Kant then applied this to Descartes’ concept of God: imagining Anselm’s god ( the greatest conceivable being) with descartes’ predicates adds to our concept of god
• adding ‘he exists’ adds nothing
• In the same way we only know Thales exist through sense experience we could only know God exists that way - logic alone is not enough

Question 10

Strengths of the OA

Answer 10

• Deductive: it works as a proof
• Arguably, according to Karl Barth, the argument is effective for theists as it is initially intended as a confession for faith rather than a logical proof

Question 11

Describe weaknesses of the OA

Answer 11

• Most agree that Kant’s objection defeats the OA - they don’t disprove the existence of god, but rather show that his existence cannot be proven through logic
• Some reject Anselm’s definition of God as the greatest conceivable being - for example, some Christians like Aquinas would reject any attempt to define him at all as they would argue that if we were to define him that would limit him, and we cannot fully know god’s existence
• The argument is weak as it uses logical tricks and circular logic - Davis argues it cannot be trusted, and Gaunilo argues that the absurd logic means it could be used on anything
• Existence isn’t a real predicate of a subject: Russell: ‘if existence was a predicate, Santa would exist’

Question 12

Describe the Status of the OA as a proof

Answer 12

• Deductive: if the premises are true, the conclusion is true
• Claims to be true without using fallible sense experience
• Anselm makes an analytic statement arguing that god exists, arguing that it is true by definition, therefore if the premises are true, it is a proof of the existence of God
• However, this is disputed - most argue that it doesn’t work: Kant’s objections show that the argument is not a proof and it instead shows that if God exists, he exists necessarily - if it really was a proof there would be no doubt
  -It could be considered a proof in Karl Barth’s sense as it is a faith based acceptance of God

Question 13

Describe the value of Anselm’s argument for religious faith

Answer 13

• Karl Barth argues that Anselm’s argument is about faith rather than logic - Anselm first wrote the OA as a prayer initially praying for God’s revelation. He later claimed it was proof of his existence
• Anselm: ‘I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand… unless I believe I shall not understand’ For Anselm, belief in God comes before reasoning about him. Anselm’s definition of God according to Barth was not based on logic but rather religious revelation
• If humans could prove the existence of God purely just by logic, then we would not need God’s revelation, and God himself could just be another object of human knowledge
• However, against Barth’s interpretation: Anselm’s proslogium is directed towards an atheist ‘fool’ - if the OA is not meant to be a logical proof to convinve an atheist, why does he go to so much trouble to demonstrate the truth of the argument?