Ontological Argument

Question 1

Intro- Where does the name ontological come from?

Answer 1

Greek word ontos meaning essence.

Question 2

What is the ontological argument based on?

Answer 2

The claim that God’s existence can be deduced from his definition and once God is correctly defined, there is no doubt that he must exist.

Question 3

What are the features of the argument?

Answer 3

A priori, deductive, only way to attack it is by denying truth in the premises (deny validity) or by denying the conclusion (deny soundness) follows the premises.

Question 4

Where is Anselms argument written

Answer 4

Proslogium 2

Question 5

Give the 3 premises and conclusion.

Answer 5

P1. God is the greatest conceivable being (by definition)
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than the mind alone
P3. God exists in the mind
C1. Therefore, God exists in reality

Question 6

What does Anselm use to illustrate his idea?

Answer 6

Painter has an idea of what they will paint in their mind before painting it in reality. The painting in reality and mind is greater than the painting in only the mind. Meaning it is greater for God to exist in reality than only the mind, by definition exists.

Question 7

Who is Anselm referring to in his argument- quote.

Answer 7

Anselm points to Psalm 14:1 “the fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’.”

Question 8

How does the argument work on athiests?

Answer 8

They say they do not believe in God, however that means they have an idea of God in their mind. Due to the definition of God, he cannot exist in the mind alone- as we could perceive something greater, so he must exist in reality

Question 9

Quote from Anselm about God not only existing in the mind.

Answer 9

‘than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone’

Question 10

Crit 1: What is Gaunilo’s lost island response to Anselm in a nut shell?

Answer 10

Gaunilo denies that the ontological argument is actually a valid deductive argument, attacking the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality

Question 11

Crit 1: Quote from Gaunilo about him rejecting Anselm

Answer 11

“I have in my understanding all manner of unreal objects”

Question 12

Crit 1: What does gaunilo use to illustrate his criticism? And explain Criticism.

Answer 12

Perfect lost island, put his argument in parallel with Anselm: It is possible to concieve the perfect lost island, it is greater to exist in reality tha to exist only in the mind, therefore the perfect lost island must exist in reality.

Question 13

Crit 1: How does this reject Anselm’s argument?

Answer 13

We know such an island cannot exist is reductio ad absurdum. proving that Anselm’s argument can be used to prove he existence of an endless amount of perfect objects.

Question 14

Counter Crit 1- What is the counter called and from where?

Answer 14

Responsio, proslogium 3.

Question 15

Counter Crit 1- Explain the responsio.

Answer 15

To be perfect the island must be ‘which no greater island could be perceived’, one which no greater could be perceived would have to exist necessarily as a contingent island would be less great, islands are contingent so cannot exist necessarily, therefore the logic of Gaunilo does not apply to God. Necessary existence is only a predicate of God, so the argument can’t be applied to God.

Question 16

Explain Descartes version, strengthening the ontological argument. + example used (hint PIZZA)

Answer 16

we intuitively know that a triangle has three sides, as impossible to bring a triangle before our mind without having three sides. Similarly, we cannot conceive of a perfect being separated from existence. We must appreciate that God contains the perfection of existence. Intuition shows us that God exists.
P1 – I have an idea of a perfect being which contains all perfections
P2 – Existence is a perfection
C3 – God exists

Question 17

Crit 2- How does Descartes define God

Answer 17

the supremely perfect being- all predicates of perfection (ominpotence, benevolence, science), therefore must also possess perfection of existence.

Question 18

Crit 2-Why does Kant reject existence as a predicate? + his example (HINT- money money money, must be funny, in a rich mans world).

Answer 18

It adds nothing to the concept of the thing. Imagine 100 thalers, you can describe predicates of them (shiny, round ect.), each new predicate adds to our knowledge of thalers. By saying they exist, nothing has been added to our understanding. No difference between our concept of 100 thalers and our concept that 100 thalers exist.

Question 19

Counter crit 2- How did Malcolm defend Anselm’s approach.

Answer 19

Kant only shows that contingent existence is not a predicate. The reason for existence of a contingent thing is external to it and so does not describe it. A necessary being doesn’t depend on anything else for its existence. It contains the reason for its existence within itself. ‘necessary existence’ therefore does describe something about a being. So, necessary existence is a predicate.

Question 20

Crit 3- What example does Kant use to show that necessity does not imply existence?- how is this applied to God

Answer 20

A unicorn is a horse with a horn is logically true, but this does not follow that unicorns really exists. God exists necessarily is logically true (how we define God), doesn’t follow there really is a God.

Question 21

Crit 3- Kant develops thi, in terms of the word ‘if’, how so?

Answer 21

Only shows that if God exists, then God exists necessarily. It doesn’t show that God-the-necessary-being does exist. If God does not exist, then neither does God’s necessity. Deny that God exists, and with that, deny that God’s necessity exists. God may be necessary, but if God does not exist then God’s necessity does not exist.