Ontological

Question 1

1.’Anslem’s ontological argument is not persuasive’ Discuss [40] AS Level 2022

Answer 1

1.(Unpersuasive) Flawed claim god can be defined into existence and known a priori
2.(Unpersuasive) Second formulation fails to overcome Gaunilo’s criticism
3.(Unpersuasive) Without prior faith Anselm fails and Kant is right to challenge existence as a predicate

Question 2

2. To what extent does Gaunilo successfully criticise the ontological argument? [40] A Level 2021

Answer 2

1. Successfully challenges Anselm’s flawed claim God can be defined into existence and known a priori
2. Gaunilo successfully refutes Anselm’s first formulation and weak defence in his second formulation
3. Gaunilo’s argument that God’s existence must be proven empirically is reinforced by Kant who effectively demonstrates existence is not a predicate

Question 3

3. To what extent does Kant successfully criticise the ontological argument? [40] AS Level 2018

Answer 3

1. Kant’s main and most successful critique of the ontological argument is that existence is not a predicate, as it does not add anything to the concept
2. Successfully challenges central claim of ontological arguments that “God exists” is an analytical truth known to be true A priori
3. While Kant successfully rejects the ontological argument, his claim that God’s existence is unknowable- given our access only to phenomena is open to dispute

Question 4

4. ‘A priori arguments are more persuasive than a posteriori arguments. ‘ Discuss. [40]

Answer 4

1.A posteriori- unpersuasive God cannot be proven a priori
2.A posteriori is more persuasive but are guilty of making assumptions/generalisations
3.A posteriori is more persuasive but neither are enough on their own, faith is necessary