Ontological Argument

Question 1

Anselm’s Ontological arguement

Answer 1

1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
2. Anyone can understand that God is the greatest conceivable being.
3. A fool says there is no God in reality.
4. He is convinced that God only exists in his understanding, not reality.
5. It is GREATER to exist in understanding and reality than merely Justin understanding.
6. The greatest conceivable being, if it is genuinely the GREATEST must exist in both understanding and reality.
7. Therefore God exists, both in reality and in understanding.

Question 2

What two aspects are crucial to Anselm?

Answer 2

1. His definition of God as the greatest being that can be conceived.
2. That it is greater to exist in reality than in understanding.

Question 3

Working example of Anselm’s argument

Answer 3

Imagine your perfect partner, wouldn’t you rather that they existed in reality than just in your imagination?
Anselm’s understanding of the argument stems from his understanding of God.
By truly analyzing what God means Anselm has come to realise that God must exist, because He is the GREATEST being. Those who deny His existence are not truly understanding the kind of being He is.

Question 4

Descartes’ version

Answer 4

1. God is a supremely perfect being.
2. A supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfections.
3. Existence is a supreme perfection.
4. Therefore God, a supremely perfect being, exists.

Question 5

What did Descartes rely on?

Answer 5

Descartes relies on the definition of God – as the ‘supremely perfect being’.

Question 6

Descartes quote

Answer 6

“From the fact I cannot conceive of God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and hence that He really exists.”

Question 7

Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm

Answer 7

Gaunilo – Anselm’s argument worthy of criticism “on behalf of the fool.” Anselm’s move from God being the greatest conceivable being to Him existing was too big a jump.
E.g. A Unicorn – at some point we have all imagined what it would look like, how it would move, eat and maybe fly. But this does not prove it’s existence.

Question 8

Gaunilo’s criticism summary

Answer 8

1. We can imagine an island which is the greatest conceivable island.
2. It is greater to exist in reality than simply in the mind.
3. Therefore the greatest conceivable island must exist in reality.
4. This shows the floors in the argument as you could apply it to anything.
5. Anselm may have put forward an apparently valid but unsound argument.

Question 9

Anselm’s response to Gaunilo

Answer 9

God cannot be thought of as non-existent.

For God to be ‘God’, by his very nature, it impossible to imagine Him not existing.

Question 10

Anselm quote

Answer 10

“God cannot be conceived not to exist… That which can be conceived not to exist is not God.”

Question 11

Aquinas’ criticism of Anselm

Answer 11

Aquinas – rejects the argument in favour of his own Five Ways
Some facts are self-evident, like “man is an animal.” In order to know these facts we must be able to define both the subject (man) and the predicate (animal).
Humans have a limited intellect and it is impossible to understand or define the nature of God. He thought that Anselm was being too bold when he claimed to know the nature of God. If we could understand God then he wouldn’t be the “greatest conceivable being” and his argument would be void.

Question 12

Aquinas quote

Answer 12

“Because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition, is not self-evident to us.”

Question 13

Kant’s criticism

Answer 13

1. Even if existence is a necessary property of God, it does not mean that God actually exists.
2. Existence cannot be a property of God, nor of anything else.

Question 14

Kant’s first criticism - part 1

Answer 14

It is possible to accept a proposition, where the subject cannot be separated from the predicate – yet deny its actual existence in the world.

Question 15

Kant’s second criticism

Answer 15

1. Wants to destroy the biggest assumption in the argument – that existence is a necessary part of the definition of God.
2. He didn’t think that existence was ‘property’ at all.

Question 16

Kant quote

Answer 16

“Existence is obviously not a real predicate” – Critique of Pure Reason

Question 17

Russell criticism

Answer 17

1. Agrees with Kant that existence is not a real predicate and does not describe the property of the subject.
2. To say a lion exists is not adding anything new to the description of the lion.
3. “Existence” is a term that informs us that there is something in the world corresponding to a particular description.
4. When we say “God exists” then we are simply saying that there is something in the world corresponding to our concept of God.
5. In order to show that “God exists” is true then we need to find something in the world corresponding to our description, and this means producing empirical evidence.

Question 18

Russell quote

Answer 18

“Existence quite definitely is not a predicate”

Question 19

David Hume criticism 1

Answer 19

He argued that it is not possible to take an idea in one’s mind, apply pure logic to that idea and reach a conclusion based entirely in the external, observable universe.
.

Question 20

How successful is the ontological argument for faith?

Answer 20

It helps people consider the attributes of God of classical theism. However understanding the word ‘God’ does not turn atheists or agnostics into believers. Faith does that rather than understanding the meaning of a word.

Question 21

How successful is the ontological argument for faith: Gaunilo

Answer 21

Gaunilo’s argument of the fool demonstrates that an atheists can have understanding of the word God, but not have faith of a being existing in reality.

Question 22

How successful is the ontological argument for faith: Anselm

Answer 22

Anselm would argue that the argument is taking people beyond the definition of the word God to knowledge of God.

Question 23

The relationship between faith and reason: Anselm

Answer 23

One key thing to consider is whether or not the argument presents valid reasoning for believing in God’s existence. This raises the question as to whether faith is grounded in reason or reason is governed by faith.
Anselm considered that reason alone can lead to error and therefore it has to be supported by faith as it is only through faith that greater understanding can be achieved.

Question 24

Anselm quote about faith and reason

Answer 24

“Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so that I can understand.”

Question 25

The relationship between faith and reason: Russell

Answer 25

Russell suggest that through logical reasoning it appears that a being with necessary existence must exist, but when we consider the argument further, merely having a definition doesn’t make God exist.

Question 26

Why do Kant and Russell say the argument is weak?

Answer 26

Kant and Russell say the argument is weak as it misuses ‘existence as a predicate. They would consider statements like “God must exist because He is a supremely perfect being” and consider it to be a misleading argument. Thus the argument only works for believers such as Anselm who hold a matter of faith in God’s existence.

Question 27

Faith may be the only proof: Karl Barth

Answer 27

Karl Barth denies the possibility of attaining knowledge of God through the use of reason. He is a supporter of the views that Anselm’s intention was not to prove the existence of God to the fool, but to offer a prayer of meditation on God as the Supreme Being in whom he has faith.

Question 28

What does Barth argue?

Answer 28

Barth argues that Anselm’s definition of God is ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’ is not presented at the beginning of the argument for the existence of God but as a description by a believer of what is understood about God within the limits of the human mind

Question 29

Could the Ontological argument weaken faith?

Answer 29

Anti-realist approach – It holds that truth or falsity of a statement depends not on whether it corresponds to the objective reality of what it describes, but on whether it corresponds to the situation as the person understands it.

Question 30

Kant’s first criticism part 2

Answer 30

Because a proposition can be true by definition, and the subject cannot be separated from the predicate, we can still deny the existence of the predicate and subject.

Question 31

Kant’s first criticism part 3

Answer 31

Whilst it is possible to accept the proposition “God necessarily exists” it is possible to deny both the subject and the predicate and say God does not exist.

Question 32

Kant’s first criticism part 4 and 5

Answer 32

4. But we can infer – “If there is a God then He must necessarily exist.”
5. We can’t move from concepts to reality like the Ontological argument does.

Question 33

David Hume criticism 2

Answer 33

He argued that existence cannot be treated as a predicate which something can ‘have’ or ‘not have’, or which can be added or subtracted to something

Question 34

The Ontological Argument for anti-realists

Answer 34

For anti-realists, the ontological argument has extra force. For members of a religious community that accepts the existence of God, the statement ‘God necessarily exists’ is true by definition.

Question 35

Anselm’s argument - how does he define God

Answer 35

‘aliquid quo nihil maius possibit’ (that than which nothing greater can be thought)

Question 36

The first part of Anselm’s argument

Answer 36

God is the greatest being that can be thought, a being that cannot be improved upon. He refers to the fool, the fool says “There is no God”. Anselm sees the absurdity of the fool’s position as there is a contradiction in that the fool (atheist) understands the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being but at the same time rejects the concept of God by denying their existence.

Question 37

First part of Anselm’s argument - what does he seek to do?

Answer 37

To show that the fool is wrong in saying that God does not exist as anyone who understands what it means to say that God exists must have knowledge of God. Anselm argues that whatever is understood must exist in the understanding, so that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding; even the atheist has this understanding even if they dismiss God’s actual existence.

Question 38

First part of Anselm’s argument - greater to exist on reality

Answer 38

In arguing that God is ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’, Anselm is stating that if God exists in the mind, then a greater being could exist in the mind and in reality. This being would then be something than which nothing greater can be conceived and would, thus be God. Therefore God must exist

Question 39

First part of Anselm’s argument - the use of reduction ad absurdum

Answer 39

Anselm is using reason to prove God exists:
1) Suppose God only exists in one’s understanding.
2) Then God could be greater by existing in reality.
3) This means a greater God is possible - one that exists in reality.
The conclusion of the contradiction of the last statement would be absurd

Question 40

How does Anselm have faith in the existence of God?

Answer 40

He has faith… Through logic, Anselm has demonstrated that the opposite opinion, that God does not exist, would be absurd.

Question 41

Second part of Anselm’s argument - God is necessary

Answer 41

For God to God there must be more than simply just existing, he thus attempts to demonstrate that God’s existence is necessary. There is no possibility of God not existing, we know that God has necessary existence because:

1) nothing greater can be conceived.
2) to be though not to exist would be inferior to thinking of something that must always exist.
3) God must therefore necessarily exist.

Question 42

Descartes’ Ontological argument - Cogito ergo sum

Answer 42

Began by seeking to prove what we can be certain of in the universe, what we can know for sure. He concluded his own existence through his ability to think “I think therefore I am”. However he cannot prove the existence of others. He concluded that the only things he could prove exist are a priori things such as mathematics.

Question 43

The first part of Descartes argument - God as an idea in the mind

Answer 43

God exists as an idea in the mind and God has a distinct definition “supremely perfect being” - defined existence as one of God’s many perfections, he is relying on what he believes is an innate idea that everyone possesses. God’s necessary existence is contained within our understanding as God as the “supremely perfect being”

Question 44

First part of Descartes’ argument - humans as imperfect beings

Answer 44

As imperfect beings, Descartes believes that humans cannot develop the idea of a perfect being themselves. Therefore the idea must have come from the perfect Himself, thus God must exist.

Question 45

Descartes quote about innate understanding of God’s existence

Answer 45

“Now all these characteristics are such that the more diligently I attend to them, the less do they appear capable of proceeding from me alone; hence… we must conclude that God necessarily exists.”

Question 46

Second part of Descartes’ argument - existence is a predicate from God.

Answer 46

Existence is a predicate of God, as a most perfect being, God must possess existence, other God is not perfect - the very essence of God includes existence. Therefore God must exist in reality or God would not be perfect and this would go against the definition of God, which is absurd. Trying to imagine God without existence is illogical and would be like trying to imagine a triangle without 3 sides.

Question 47

Descartes quote about existence being a predicate of God

Answer 47

“Existence is a part of the concept of a perfect being”

Question 48

Significance of the argument for the believer

Answer 48

Could help develop a believes understanding of God. This could strengthen a person’s relationship with God, perhaps giving further reason to praise God.

Question 49

Gottlob Frege and first/second order predicates

Answer 49

First order predicates tell us something about the nature of concepts are apply directly to objects themselves. Second order predicates apply only to first order concepts and not to objects themselves. Frege concludes that existence is not a first-order predicate, as it does not tell us about the nature of something. As a second order predicate it does not add anything to our understanding of the concept. He thus concludes that existence cant be used as a predicate for God’s existence.

Question 50

Norman Malcolm - a development of the necessary existence of God

Answer 50

He could not support Anselm’s first argument because it is not valid, as existence is not a characteristic. However he supported his second argument because:

1) The concept of God is the concept of a being whose existence is necessary.
2) It is not possible to think of a being that necessarily exists not existing.
3) Thus, God must exist.

Question 51

Plantinga - Possible worlds

Answer 51

Eg. In our world JFK was an American president who was assassinated , however this was not necessarily so; he could have made a different career choice and became an estate agent. In each possible world you have to consider the above, there will be many differences. That is the whole point of this notion; the possibilities are infinite.

Question 52

Plantinga - maximal greatness

Answer 52

He offers the description of another possible world:
1) there is a possible world , in which a being with ‘maximal greatness’ lives
2) a being has maximal greatness if they live in all possible worlds.
In every possible world there must be a being of ‘maximal greatness’

Question 53

Plantinga - maximal excellence

Answer 53

He further suggests the concept of ‘maximal excellence’.
He states that: 1) Maximal greatness entails maximal excellence, maximal excellence entails omnipotence and moral perfection.

Question 54

Plantinga challenge to Gaunilo’s criticism

Answer 54

Islands are contingent whereas God is eternal and islands do not have ‘intrinsic maximum’.

Question 55

Charles Hartshorne - whether existence is a property

Answer 55

He said that philosophers ignore one aspect on Anselm’s argument, he considers that Anselm uses ‘existence’ differently in his two arguments - existence is not always a property, but that does not mean never. When applied to the necessary existence of God, it is a property.