The Design Argument : Ontological Flashcards
FOR : What is the first part of Anselms Ontological argument? — God is TTWNGCBC
Anselm would argue that God must exist by definition, as he is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, because anything which exists in our minds would be even greater if it existed in reality. Therefore, by Gods definition that he is the best possible thing imaginable can only be correct if he is an existent God, as if he only existed in our minds he would not be “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. Anselm is saying that if God only exists in our minds and not reality, than he cannot be the greatest thing as he does not exist in reality but only ones mind, therefore by definition exists.
AGAINST : What is the first part of Gaunilos Ontological argument? — the perfect island
Gaunilo would object Anselms Ontological argument in his work he called “On behalf of the fool”, as he states that just because we have an understanding of something (eg understanding the definition) doesn’t mean that the thing automatically exists. He uses the analogy of the perfect island, where he states that if it is possible to create the perfect lost island, this island would be better to exist in reality than in our minds, therefore to make it the best possible island to be conceived it must exist in reality as well as in our minds. Gaunilo uses this example to help us understand that Anselms argument is actually illogical as it would mean we could define anything into existence. He uses reduction ad absurdum to assist his argument as he shows how this would lead to the existence of merely anything, therefore absolutely absurd.
FOR : What is the first continued part of Anselms Argument? — Reduction ad Absurdum
Anselm would say that it is absolutely absurd to understand that God is “than that which nothing greater can be conceived” and still believe he doesn’t exist as this is a direct contradictory of his definition. Therefore, it would be absurd to understand and acknowledge him by definition and deny his existence, as if God is the greatest thing to be conceived than he must exist in our minds and reality. Anselm would argue that Atheists are fools because even they can agree of the definition of God, and to still believe he doesn’t exist after agreeing with his definition is contradictory. Anselm would therefore argue that atheists are ‘irreconcilable contradictions’, as they are not willing to listen to the logic to understand God or must not understand the definition or else would understand he must exist.
FOR : What was the Second part of Anselms argument? — Objecting Gaunilos idea of the Perfect Island
Anselm denies Gaunilos objection to his argument involving the perfect lost island as he says Islands are Contingent yet God is necessary therefore the same concept does not apply. Anselm says it is impossible to define the perfect island as it is ever changing, and can have an infinite amount of adjustments thus doesn’t have an agreed definition. Unlike God, where even the fools agree that God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. Secondly, Anselm stressed that the nature of his ontological argument was intended to be applied to God only, as no contingent thing can exist necessarily therefore cannot be perfect. Anselm claims that his argument was only intended to be applied to God.
AGAINST : What is Kants first objection to Anselms Ontological argument?
Kant objects Anselms Ontological argument as he claims that existence is not a real predicate since it adds nothing new to the concept of the thing. For example: he uses an example of 100 Thalers. If you imagine Thalers and describe them as gold, round and metallic this adds to the concept of them. However, by just saying they exist this adds no new knowledge to what we already know, as in order to understand what Thalers are you must experience them. The same concept can be applied to the concept of God, Anselm tells us that God is the greatest conceivable being and has traits such as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, which all give meaning to the concept of God. But, by just saying “Oh by the way, Thalers exist”, it adds nothing new to our understanding of God. Moreover, the only way we can understand that God does exist is by experiencing him. Logic alone doesn’t help anything.
AGAINST : What is Kants second objection to the Ontological argument?
Kant argues against the Ontological argument as just because God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived doesn’t mean that God exists in reality. The idea of existence can be analytically true but it doesn’t mean it must but the statement “God exists” must be empirically verified through experience. The actual existence of something cannot be proved by the definition. For example, the definition of a unicorn can be true analytically (a horse with a horn) but it does not follow that there are actual unicorns. It uses the idea of “if”, saying that if unicorns exist then they will be horses with horns. The same concept can be applied with God, if he exists then he will exist necessarily
INTRODUCTION : Introduce the Ontological Argument.
> The Ontological Argument is an argument which attempts to prove the existence of God through understanding and logic.
St Anselm or Canterbury came up with this argument as an attempt to establish Gods existence through reason alone.
Anselm was a part of a group of Scholars known as the Early Scholars and published his work in chapters 2-4 of his Prosologian.
It is a deductive argument meaning it uses logic rather than evidence of sense of experience.
It is an example of ‘a priori’ argument where it shows simple logical reasoning through a statement.
