The Ontological Argument

Question 1

Define The Ontological Argument

Answer 1

God must exist as a God who exists is greater than a God who does not

Question 2

Outline Anselm’s First Ontological Argument

Answer 2

1. God is a being “that which nothing greater can be conceived”
2. Greater to exist ‘in re’ than ‘in intellectu’
3. God exists in reality as he is the greatest possible being

Question 3

Outline Anselm’s Second Ontological Argument

Answer 3

1. God is a being “that which nothing greater can be conceived”
2. The greatest imaginable being exists necessarily
3. God exists necessarily

Question 4

Outline Descartes’ OA

Answer 4

• OA is not proof but a self-evident axiom grasped intuitively by a free mind
• Triangle analogy: it’s essence are core properties that you can’t change as they already exist => can’ not exist
• can’t have God without his existence as it would be illogical

Question 5

Outline Plantinga’s Modal OA

Answer 5

1. God is the greatest possible being
2. Greatest possible being is one that possesses all perfections necessarily
3. Necessary existence is a perfection
4. It is possible that the greatest possible being exists
5. If that is possible then the being exists necessarily
6. God exists necessarily
7. God exists

Question 6

Kant’s objection to the OA

Answer 6

• existence is not a predicate
• existence is a concept corresponding to something in the world => making it like a property as if you are calling something blue
• Bank account analogy: define it by claiming it contained millions of pounds does not make it so

Question 7

Guanilo’s objection to the OA

Answer 7

• Anselm’s definition of God predetermines the outcome of his argument
• Perfect island analogy
• ‘de dictu’ doesn’t mean they exist ‘de re’

Question 8

Quine’s objection to the OA

Answer 8

• denies the existence of abstract objects => makes God’s existence are logically impossible as the only type of objects that exist those that have a contingent existence

Question 9

Aquinas’ objection to the OA

Answer 9

• OA tells you the idea, lacks proof for his existence

- we don’t have an agreed definition of God => no way of knowing if this characterisation of God is correct