Ontological Argument - AO2 and Essay Plans

Question 1

Strengths of St Anselm’s ontological argument

Answer 1

• It is built on logic-something must exist by neccesity- one that can follow a line of reasoning without any undue jumps or assertions.
• Descartes agrees with Anselm that a ‘supremely perfect being’ is in existence.
• Norman Malcom- God’s existence is either impossible or neccesary . God has to exist. If God didn’t exist then God couldn’t come into or go out of existence since something else would have either caused God to be or cease to be “If there could be a God there must be a God”

Question 2

Weaknesses of Anselm’s ontological argument

Answer 2

-Gaunilo- ones concept of a ‘perfect island’ does not imply that such a place exists.
-Aquinas- Human’s cannot understand God’s nature (not self evident) therefore ‘God Exist’s’ cannot be analytic and cannot prove God’s existence
no a priori argument can prove his existence- we need experiences (link to religious experiences.)
-JL Mackie- Providing God With characterisations are meaningless as he cannot be verified.
-providing God with charcterisations are meaningless as he cannot be verified.
-Bertrand Russell- claims Anselm uses the word ‘exist’ incorrectly/existence cannot be a predicate. If it were, we could argue -Santa’s existence (link to Kant (existence is not a predicate)
-The statement God exists can only ever be a synthetic statement- it needs verifying. (link to AJ Ayer)

Question 3

The ontological argument is convincing

Answer 3

-Plato, our senses are imperfect and misleading. We should trust reasons to understand true reality.
All of the ontological arguments are based on an a priori understanding of God and the universe.
-Descartes agrees with ansel that a quality of a ‘supremely perfect being’ is in existence.
-Aristotles idea of the PM supports the idea of a being that exists in reality.
- it is built on logic- something must exist by neccesity. All are structured in a way that one can follow the line of reasoning from start to finish, without any undue jumps or assertions

Question 4

The ontological argument is not convincing

Answer 4

• Gaunilo- analogy of a perfect island, the same can be said for anything else. However, the claim that perfect things really exist is ridiculous, there is no such thing as a perfect island.
  -Aquinas- Humans cannot understand God’s nature (not self-evident) therefore ‘God exists’ cannot be analytic and cannot prove his necessary existence
  no a priori argument can prove God’s existence- we need experiences to prove his existence.
  -Kant, existence is not a predicate
  Bertrand Russell- claims anselm uses the word ‘exist’ incorrectly/Existence cannot be a predicate. If it were, we could argue Santa’s existence.

Question 5

The ontological argument fails to overcome its logical fallacies
AGREE

Answer 5

-It may be contradictory according to descartes say that “God does not exist” but if i reject the subject God and the predicate existence the contradiction is removed. What Kant means is, we simply don’t have to accept the statement ‘God exists is self-contradictory’ and in fact, we can say that ‘God does not exist’ and not contradict ourselves.
-If i say that ‘unicorns exist’ the use of the word exists demands that there actually is a unicorn so that the statement has meaning.
-Aquinas- Humans cannot understand God’s nature (not self-evident) therefore ‘God exists’ cannot be analytic and cannot prove his necessary existence
no a priori argument can prove God’s existence- we need experiences to prove his existence.

Question 6

The ontological argument fails to overcome its logical fallacies
DISAGREE

Answer 6

• it is built on logic- something must exist by necessity. All are structured in a way that one can follow the line of reasoning from start to finish, without any undue jumps or assertions.
  -Plato, our senses are imperfect and misleading. We should trust reasons to understand true reality.
  All of the ontological arguments are based on an a priori understanding of God and the universe.
  -Descartes agrees with Anselm that there is a perfect being in existence
  -Norman Malcom- God’s existence is either impossible or neccesary
  “If there could be a God there must be a God.”
  -Aristotle’s PM supports Anselm’s idea of a being that exists by necessity. It is logical even though it may not be God.

Question 7

Kant proves the ontological argument is incoherent

Answer 7

 Objection 1: Rejecting the entirety of the argument whilst accepting the predicate
• It may be contradictory according to Descartes to say “God does not exist” but if I reject the
subject (God) and its predicate (existence) the contradiction is removed. I.e I can accept that a defining predicate of a mermaid is being half woman/half fish but I can reject the whole notion of mermaids all together.
• What Kant means is, we simply don’t have to accept the statement ‘God exists’ and in fact, we can say ‘God does not exist’ and not contradict ourselves.
• Counter – The majority of the population still holds God’s existence to be a reality. Not the same as the comparison of a mermaid, which the majority recognise as fiction.
• LINK BACK TO QUESTION – does this prove the ontological argument incoherent? Why?
 Objection 2: Existence is not a predicate at all
• A predicate adds a description to a concept. Existence does not add anything to God.
• I.e. Suppose I believe in the existence of mermaids. The existence of the mermaid in no way
changes my concept of one.
• Therefore to say something exists does not add anything to the concept of God at all.
• Support - Why does God have to be perfect? Why would perfection be a predicate of God?
Greek Gods were anything but perfect.
• Counter - Plantinga – God has maximal greatness (further reading)
• LINK BACK TO QUESTION – does this prove the ontological argument incoherent? Why?
 Objection 3 - it is wrong to claim that God exists when the OA is an enquiry into the possibility of God’s existence.
• It is wrong to suggest that you are enquiring open-mindedly into God’s existence and then introduce the concept of existence as a necessary part of your description of God.
• Support – all philosophical theories are non-verifiable beyond doubt – therefore are theories not proofs.
• Counter – Norman Macolm - His existence cannot be impossible since the concept is not self- contradictory - therefore God necessarily exists.
• LINK BACK TO QUESTION – does this prove the ontological argument incoherent? Why?
 Objection 4 - all existential (to do with existence) propositions are synthetic.

• We have to use our senses to verify that something exists and that the concept of God contains the predicate of existence.
• Support - Aquinas – Cannot use logic to prove God’s existence, must use evidence to propose possibility.
• Counter – Plato – should not trust our senses – they can mislead us.
• LINK BACK TO QUESTION – does this prove the ontological argument incoherent? Why?