To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?

Question 1

introduction

Answer 1

-Anselm, Proslogian chapter 1.
-2 parts
-first, the definition of God that even the atheist would accept,
-second, based on the statement that God’s existence is necessary.
-argument based on the misconception that existence can be proved without empirical evidence.
-Kant and Hume prove its not successful in proving Gods existence.

Question 2

paragraph 1- ao1 anselm

Answer 2

-Psalm 14, “the fool says in his heart that there is no god”
- atheist, who denies the physical existence of God, accepts God, must be defined as that ‘that which no greater can be conceived’
-greatest being must exist in the mind (in intellectu) and reality (in re) in order to be the greatest being
-example of a painter: painter has an idea of painting in his mind. Painting is greater once painted as it now exists in mind and in reality
-god must exist otherwise greater beings can be conceived
-god is real and in reality as he must possess both forms of existence
-following the premises of the argument, god has to exist as he’s the greatest conceivable being so must be in mind of reality. Its valid reasoning to say existence in m + r greater so argument works.

Question 3

paragraph 1- criticism of Anselm

Answer 3

-criticism: we can disagree w/ Anselm’s reasoning and deny the premises. For example, we can argue that it’s better to exist in the mind alone as we can imagine things that are otherwise impossible, such as flying carpets.
-a priori arguments can also use invalid logic. It may be better to use empirically based a posteriori arguments, such as from design, to prove God’s existence as at least there’s some evidence to use.

Question 4

paragraph 2- Gaunilo

Answer 4

• book ‘on behalf of the fool’
  -Anselm was defining God into existence. Just bc we understand something in our mind does not follow that the ‘something’ must exist
  -example of the perfect island: can picture the greatest island in your mind so have understanding of it. Anselm claims anything that exists in reality is greater than in the mind alone. So any island that exists is greater than the imaginary ‘greatest’ island, but for this to be greatest possible island it must exist. However, it does not really exist as I have just imagined it.

Question 5

paragraph 2- response to Gaunilo from Anselm

Answer 5

-Anselm- proslogian chapter 3 responds: island contingent as made of matter, must have been made can conceive of it existing and not-existing. God is necessary and a necessary existence as he’s always existed (infinite) and so cannot not exist

Question 6

paragraph 2- criticism of Gaunilo from Plantinga

Answer 6

-Plantinga- island has no ‘intrinsic maxim’- it can always be improved (e.g. by adding more trees). God has an intrinsic maxim as is the greatest conceivable being so can’t be any greater

Question 7

paragraph 2- response to criticisms of Gaunilo

Answer 7

this relies on the acceptance of the premise that God is a different type of being than any other object which seems an arbitrary fact w/o supporting evidence.
-it’s impossible to have a definition of something that only exists in the imagination. For example, can imagine a unicorn but it doesn’t mean it actually exists. Anslem’s defining things into existence.

Question 8

paragraph 3- Kant

Answer 8

-based on his dualistic view of the world, that it is impossible to prove the existence of an object without empirical verifiable proof.
-existence is not a predicate’
- existence is not something that can be attributed to an object to claim that it is factual true. must be empirical evidence that demonstrates the object has those characteristics.

Question 9

paragraph 3- hume

Answer 9

-Hume argues that ‘existential statements are synthetic’. statements about the existence of objects are empirically proved through ‘a posteriori’ reasoning, not through ‘a priori’

Question 10

paragraph 3- criticism of Kant

Answer 10

descartes argues just as a triangle must have three sides, a mountain must have a valley. god must have existence

Question 11

paragraph 3- Kant and Hume

Answer 11

-both argue LOGICAL FALLACY to claim that you can describe something into existence; existence can only be demonstrated through the use of empirical evidence