the ontological argument

Question 1

What argument is the ontological argument?

Answer 1

A priori, deductive, analytic

Question 2

What is meant by a priori?

Answer 2

Doesn’t require sense experience; only logic/reasoning

Question 3

What is meant by deductive?

Answer 3

Conclusion has to be true if you agree w the premise

Question 4

What is meant by analytic?

Answer 4

True by definition

Question 5

What book did Anselm write the argument in?

Answer 5

Proslogium chapter 2 + 3

Question 6

What is the fault made by Gaunilo?

Answer 6

Proslogium 3 contains the answer to Gaunilos argument before he wrote the criticism
He made the mistake of reading chapter 2, writing the criticism + not reading chapter 3

Question 7

What was Anselm’s proslogium more of?

Answer 7

More of a prayer; he never intended to formulate an argument
He already believed in God + wasn’t focused on convincing other ppl

Question 8

What is Anselm’s definition of God?

Answer 8

A being which that than which nothing greater can be conceived

Question 9

What does Anselm assume about his definition of God?

Answer 9

Anselm assumes that everyone would agree w this bread def.
Even the fool (atheist) has an idea of God in their head

Question 10

What are Anselm’s 2 premises + conclusion (simplified)?

Answer 10

P1- God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
P2 - It’s greater to exist in reality than just the imagination/mind
C- Therefore God must exist in reality

Question 11

What is the analogy of the painter?

Answer 11

• A painter has an image of the painting before he paints it
• When he paints it, he realises the painting now exists in reality

Question 12

Explain the painting analogy

Answer 12

There’s a diff between a painting existed in the understanding + then understanding the painting to exist in reality

Question 13

What is Gaunilos objection of the onto arg on ‘behalf of the fool’?

Answer 13

P1 imagine the greatest island
P2 But it would be greater if it was real rather than in the imagination
(G didn’t read Proslogium 3 before writing ‘on behalf’)

Question 14

What was the conclusion of Gaunilo’s ‘On behalf of the Fool’?

Answer 14

You can’t derive existential claims from the definition
Anselm’s argument can be used to imagine anything into existence

Question 15

What were the premises + conclusion of Anselm’s Proslogium 3?

Answer 15

P1 - God is that than which nth greater can be conceived
P2 - It’s greater to exist necessarily than contingently
C - God exists necessarily

Question 16

What does Proslogium 3 mean for Gaunilo’s argument?

Answer 16

Gaunilos analogy is based on a contingent object + doesn’t apply to God

Question 17

What did Descartes think about the Ontological argument?

Answer 17

Liked the Ontological argument

Question 18

What did Descartes say about the onto arg?

Answer 18

God has predicates; omnipotence, omnibenelovence etc + EXISTENCE
D says existence is a perfect predicate - God can’t be perfect if he doesn’t exist

Question 19

What is Kant’s ‘existence isn’t a predicate’ objection?

Answer 19

• Saying smth exists tells us nth about the nature of someone/something
• E.g. of 100 Thalers

Question 20

What is Kant’s 2nd objection?

Answer 20

• God would have a necessary existence IF God existed
• The onto arg fails bc it omits the word ‘if’
• IF smth exists, then I can accept the definition

Question 21

What does Kant say is illegitimate?

Answer 21

It’s illegitimate to jump from an analytic statement to an existential statement

Question 22

Why was Kant’s criticism successful?

Answer 22

No one argued against it

Question 23

What does Kant say the only way you can prove smth is?

Answer 23

Through experience, not logic

Question 24

What is the e.g. used for Kants objection?

Answer 24

‘A unicorn is a horse w a horn’ is logically true bc that’s the definition
BUT it doesn’t mean there ARE unicorns

Question 25

What are the 3 strengths of the Ontological argument?

Answer 25

• Deductive arg; if it succeeds, it’s proof of God
• It’s a true argument to ppl who have faith
• Helps you learn the diff bet synthetic + analytic

Question 26

What are the 3 weaknesses of the Ontological argument?

Answer 26

• Existence isn’t a predicate
• ‘Existing necessarily’ doesn’t mean existing in realist
• Attempt to define God limits God
• Not many theists are aware of/accept the argument

Question 27

What about the nature of Anselm’s argument proves the existence of God?

Answer 27

If it’s premises are true, then it does prove the existence

Question 28

What else is there that shows Anselm’s argument as proof?

Answer 28

Its thought that his argument is just a meditation on the nature of God to assure his monks that their faith was reasonable

Question 29

What about the argument says its not proof of God?

Answer 29

• Most agree w Kant that it just shows that IF God exists, he exists necessarily
• Gaunilo’s response means he understood it as an attempt to prove God
• Anselm’s preface shows he may have seen it as proof

Question 30

What shows Anselm’s argument has value for religious faith?

Answer 30

• Works for those who are theists
• Their religious belief is rational

Question 31

What shows Anselm’s argument has NO value for religious faith?

Answer 31

• If it fails as proof then its value to religious faith is limited
• Fidests reject rational arg to try + prove existence of God
• Barth said God can only be known through revelation, not logic