The Ontological Argument

Question 1

Whats the point of the OA and definition

Answer 1

tries to explain existence of God

ontos - being logos - study

Question 2

What is the argument in response to?

Answer 2

The fool in Psalm 14 - “only fools say in their hearts that God does not exist.

Question 3

What would you write in the introduction?

Answer 3

• tries to explain the existence of God
• ontos= being logos=stufy
• God exists is an analytic statement (true be definition e.g. bachelors are unmarried men, triangles have 3 sides.) as we know existence is a predicate of God.
• link to Leibeniz sufficient reason - as god is his own sufficient reason (doesn’t need any other thing to exist, his own how and why)
• a priori argument focused around reason
• deductive
• response to psalm 14

Question 4

background to Anselm

Answer 4

St Anselm of Canterbury
1033-1109
- Italian monk so came from the position of faith
- Wrote OA in ‘Proslogion’ (named by Kant)
- aware of a posteriori knowledge from Aristotle
- against the fool
- definition of god even the fool cannot dispute
e.g. i have an understanding of mermaids but it is not in my understanding that mermaids exist, we can think of God but unless he exists in reality he isn’t the greatest thing we can think of so he must exist.

Question 5

what does Anselm believe

Answer 5

• believed true understanding was consequence of faith
• wanted to prove gods existence in a christian sense
• god is necessary not contingent

Question 6

Anselms 3 stage argument

Answer 6

1. God is TTWNGCBC, he is supremely perfect (omni….) we can understand a powerful being but we understand that God has the best qualities so he is most powerful.
2. Something that exists in reality is always better than just existing in mind e.g better to have million pounds in reality. If gods supremely perfect he must exist in reality if not he’s limited
3. if god is TTWNGCBC he must exist in reality and mind as if he docent he can’t be god

Question 7

what was Gaunilos criticism

Answer 7

• in favour of the fool
• thought anselm was unintelligible and wishful thinking

1. Gossip - fool could have all sorts of things in his mind that do not exist in reality. unreliable - tricking. just because we say god exists doesn’t make it true.
2. defining something into existence - you can’t demonstrate somethings existence just by having an idea about it.
3. Island - anyone can conceive a perfect island but this doesn’t mean it exists. Anselm cannot prove God is the greatest possible being so cannot prove he exists in reality, it is absurd.

Question 8

Anselm reply to Gaunilo

Answer 8

• God has to exist necessarily as if he was contingent he would not be the greatest possible being.
• therfore, when using the island which is contingent the argument doesn’t work.
• only works with necessary beings - god.

Question 9

Descartes reworking of the OA

Answer 9

• humans can know what god is (disagreeing with aquinas)
  1. we have innate a priori knowledge of God that is universally shared. This is like a logo/stamp of a craftsman
  2. some things cannot be doubted like maths, ‘God exists’ is an anlaytic statement, so is Triangles have 3 sides
  3. God is supremely perfect so should be on the other person to raise doubt first - cannot think of god not existing.

Question 10

OTHER SCHOLARS views

Answer 10

1. Aquinas rejection of Anselm - gods existence isn’t self-evident. Possible to have the concept of God not existing = fool did it. Would everyone say that god is TTWNGCBC?
2. Kants rejection of Anselm - existence is not a predicate - doesn’t tell us about the thing - we can have the idea of a unicorn but it doesn’t mean it exists.
3. Plantigas response to Gaunilo - you can always add or take away from the island. you can never add something to make god be more perfect.
4. Malcolm - suggested necessary existence is a predicate of god
5. Gassendi - existence - something either exists or it doesn’t. You can only discuss perfection if it exists - e.g. unicorns and yetis

Question 11

Gods existece is logically necessary

Answer 11

Yes - Anselm, God has to exist necessarily he isn’t contingent as he is TTWNGCBC so therefore he cannot be contingent was his creator would be better then him so God is necessary
Plus, Decartes says that God exiting is an analytic statement (virtue by truth of meaning)- cannot not exist or he wouldn’t be god

No - Aquinas/Kant - existence isn’t a predicate. Wrong to say we cannot think of God not existing - the fool did
plus Gaunillo said even though we can imagine the perfect island, it doesn’t mean it exists.