Ontological Argument:

Question 1

What is the Ontological argument?

Answer 1

An argument with logical reason that wants to prove the existence of God.

Question 2

Who developed this argument?

Answer 2

St Anselm

Question 3

What did Anselm believe the risk of this theory was?

Answer 3

That true understanding was a consequence of faith.

Question 4

In Proslogion Chapter two: What did Anselm make clear of before anyone attempts to understand God?

Answer 4

Anselm made clear that we need to first have faith in God and then try to understand him. This links to Anselm painter analogy, Anselm creates a clear distinction between having an idea of something and thinking about its existence, in Gods Omnipotent argument.

Question 5

Ibin Sina:

Answer 5

An Arab philosopher who argued that ‘anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned, until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten’.

Question 6

In Proslogion Chapter Three: What are the four categories that Boethius argues, in his commentary on Aristotle’s categories?

Answer 6

In order to understand Anselm’s point, Boethius argues that everything that we can think of originates from at least one of the following four categories:

• Possible to be.
• Possible not to be.
• Not possible to be.
• Not possible not to be.

Question 7

How many versions are there of the ontological argument?

Answer 7

There are two versions of the ontological argument.

Question 8

Version One:

Answer 8

• Premise One: God is something in which nothing greater can be thought of.
• Premise Two: Things either exist in the mind only OR mind and reality.
• Premise Three: it is greater for things to exist in mind and reality, than mind only.

Question 9

Contradictions of Version One:

Answer 9

Version one forms a logical contradiction with the following two statements, as our assumption one (God exists in the mind only) is false. However, by premise two, the alternative view is that God exists in the mind and reality.

Question 10

Version Two:

Answer 10

• Premise One: God is something in which nothing greater can be thought of.
• Premise Two: Things exist either contingently or necessarily.
• Premise Three: It is Greater to exist.

Question 11

Contradictions found in Version Two:

Answer 11

Version two forms a logical contradiction with the following two statements, as our assumption one (God exists contingently) is false, and by premise two, the alternative is God exists.

Question 12

CRITIQUE: Gaunilo of Marmoutiers:

Answer 12

• Gaunilo believes in God’s existence. However, he critiques Anselm’s argument as a means of what philosophically makes sense; viewing the argument from an Atheists perspective.
• Moreover, Gaunilo argues that Anselm’s argument could allow anyone to believe in anything and come to a conclusion that it exists.

Question 13

Gaunilo Example:

Answer 13

Gaunilo gives an example of a mythical ‘lost island’. He argues that if the perfect island did not exist, then the island would not be perfect. Gaunilo argues that there is no such as perfect island, perfect pen, perfect table in this world.

Question 14

Conclusion of what Gaunilo argues:

Answer 14

Therefore, Gaunilo argues that if parallel arguments from perfection are absurd, then the original ontological argument is absurd.

Question 15

Anselm’s response to Gaunilo’s criticism:

Answer 15

Anselm points out that the ‘perfect island’ is contingent; because it depends on things like the sea and earth. Moreover, islands don’t have to exist; in order for it to exist, it must have a reason to exist. All contingent beings have a reason to exist. For example, humans exist to reproduce. Moving forwards, does the perfect island become imperfect once an extra grain of sand is added; or removed.

Question 16

CRITIQUE: Aquinas:

Answer 16

You cannot prove that God exists through a priori argument; because it is not self evident that God is the greatest conceivable being. Furthermore, Anselm tries to prove God by contradiction, which Aquinas believed that it is infective because, not everyone believes in God.

Question 17

Descartes development of Anselm’s argument:

Answer 17

Creates two points for his argument.

Question 18

Descartes first point:

Answer 18

God is by definition perfect. An imperfect God is not a God. If God is perfect, he must contain all aspects of perfection. Perfection of existence. Moreover, if God did not exist, he would not be perfect.

Question 19

Descartes second point:

Answer 19

Existence is a defining predicate of the concept of God. In exactly the same way as having three sides and three angles is necessary to the concept of a triangle. Without the three sides, there wouldn’t be a concept of a triangle. God who didn’t exist, according to Descartes, wouldn’t be God. A defining predicate is a description something has to have to be itself.

Question 20

Kant’s critique on Descartes:

Answer 20

Develops two criticisms of Descartes argument:

• If one believes in all creatures. Then surely, they would believe in the existence of a half-woman, half-fish, Mermaid. If they do not, then that would be a contradiction.
• Existence is not predicate at all. For example, if I say my cat is tabby, ‘tabby’ is what tells me the idea of the cat.

Question 21

John Cottingham:

Answer 21

The ontological argument only makes sense in the context of faith.

Question 22

STRENGTHS:

Answer 22

• This argument aims to present proof by contradiction. Takes almost an apophatic approach, without actually downgrading God.
• This argument creates a a stimulating comparison to the other two arguments of teleological and cosmological.
• An argument of deductive reasoning.

Question 23

WEAKNESS:

Answer 23

• Anyone could make a conclusion that anything foolish exists, using the syllogism.
• It is a logical fallacy, because one may not agree with argument at first, therefore, they won’t agree with the argument at all, because it is illogical to them.
• Argument makes a lot of jumps, leaving many questionable ideas about the theory itself.