Ontological argument 1D

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

-Anselm- introduced in proslogion
-attempt to prove the existence of God
-a priori & deductive reasoning
-starts with a statement known for true by definition-logical conclusion
-definition-that than which nothing greater can be conceived

Question 2

Proslogion: TTWNGCBC, in re/intellectu

Answer 2

-The argument begins with a priori knowledge – the definition of God.​ (TTWNGCBC)
-two ways of existing – in re (in reality) and in intellectu (in the mind)​
-If God is the greatest conceivable being, then He must exist both in the mind as well as in reality.​
-This is because if He only existed in the mind, then anything that exists in reality would be ‘greater’ than Him, meaning He wouldn’t be the ‘greatest conceivable being’.​
-“Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.”​

Question 3

The Fool: Psalms, why the fool’s statement is logically incoherent​

Answer 3

-Psalms – “the fool said in his heart, there is no God”​
-fool is foolish- he would agree with the definition of God however he doesn’t understand the implications of this definition.​
-The fool is essentially saying ‘the being that must exist, doesn’t exist’​
-This would be like saying the round triangle or the married bachelor, it is logically incoherent.​

Question 4

Proslogion 3: necessary existence​

Answer 4

-a priori knowledge, the definition of God, ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’​
-Contingent existence is that which depends on factors outsides of itself to exist, meaning it could or could not exist
-Necessary existence is existence that does not depend on any outside factors, it must exist, it can’t not exist.​
-inferior to have contingent existence rather than necessary existence.​
-Therefore, if God is TTWNGCBC, then He not only must exist, but He must have necessary existence.​