Ontological argument

Question 1

What does ontology mean?

Answer 1

a study of ‘existence’

Question 2

What kind of argument is it?

Answer 2

• a priori
• deductive
• analytic

Question 3

Why did Anselm come up with the ontological argument?

Answer 3

To support faith (“faith seeking understanding”), which he believed was more important than reason

Question 4

In his Monologium, what does Anselm say we have a shared sense of?

Answer 4

Justice

Question 5

Why does he believe we have a shared sense of justice?

Answer 5

He believes we can all agree in how just a given situation is.
* As we all agree across cultures, this idea of justice does not come from communities, otherwise we could not agree. Anselm believes that justice comes from elsewhere.

Question 6

Where does Anselm say justice comes from?

Answer 6

• Justice must derive from a being that is all good. Justice is an idea in the mind of God and it is God that gives us the ability to know and understand justice.
  
  • Anselm says if we all have a shared sense of justice, we must all have a shared concept of this being that is all good.
  • Anselm concludes that even an atheist can recognise that there is a common concept of justice, and therefore, they must also have a concept of where it comes from. It must come from a being that is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. This is the first premise of his argument.

Question 7

What is Anselm’s first argument?

Answer 7

Premise 1: God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Premise 2: It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than to exist in just the mind.

Conclusion: If God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, he must exist in the mind and reality, otherwise there could be a being that exists in mind and reality which is greater than God, if he only exists in the mind.

Question 8

What does this first argument mean?

Answer 8

If god is that than which no greater god can be conceived, it must exist in the mind and reality, otherwise there could be a god that exists in mind and reality which is then greater, if the god only exists in the mind.

Question 9

What is Anselm’s analogy of the painter?

Answer 9

Anselm compares the case to that of a painter executing a painting. A painter might have a certain image in mind before realizing it on the canvas. Before the painting, it is only in his mind; after the painting, it is both in his mind and on the canvas

Question 10

How does Davies support the second premise?

Answer 10

“a £5 in my pocket is greater than a £5 in my imagination”

Question 11

How does Gaunilo criticise Anselm?

Answer 11

Premise 1: Imagine an island that is ‘that than which no greater Island can be conceived.’

Premise 2: It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind.

Conclusion: If the island is that than which no greater island can be conceived, it must exist in the mind and reality, otherwise there could be an island that exists in mind and reality which is then greater, if the island only exists in the mind.

Therefore, Gaunilo said Anselm’s argument is absurd as you could reason anything into existence, and obviously those islands don’t exist.

Question 12

How does Anselm respond to Gaunilo?

Answer 12

Anselm did not see this as a valid criticism because the island is contingent. He came up with his second form of the ontological argument.

Question 13

What is the second part of Anselm’s ontological argument?

Answer 13

Premise 1: God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’.

Premise 2: It is greater to be necessary (can not fail to exist) than contingent (comes in and out of existence).

Conclusion: If God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, God must be necessary, otherwise a being could exist that was necessary and would therefore be greater than God, a contradiction.

Question 14

How does Platinga support Anselm?

Answer 14

You cannot compare God to an island - islands are contingent (come in and out of existence) and we can always add to an island. God is not the same.

Question 15

How does Aquinas criticise Anselm?

Answer 15

• We do not all share a common concept of God. The human mind is finite and so not capable of knowing an infinite God - so God will always be unknowable, so we can’t all agree on a definition of God. Aquinas believed that Anselm’s argument could only prove that we have an idea of God in our minds but he could not prove that this idea of God exists outside of the mind as a reality.

Question 16

How does Davies criticise Anselm?

Answer 16

Davies says that it is nonsense to ask which is more perfect - something in the mind or in reality.

Question 17

What did Descartes define God as?

Answer 17

a ‘supremely perfect being’

Question 18

What did Descartes believe about God?

Answer 18

• Descartes believed that existence is a part of perfection. So if God is perfect, then God must exist. Alternatively, if God does not exist, then God is not perfect.
  
  • Descartes believed that to say that God is perfect and does not exist is like saying that a triangle does not have three sides. God is perfect and so must exist is an analytic statement.

Question 19

How did Kant criticise the ontological argument?

Answer 19

• Kant argued that existence is not a predicate of perfection. Existence does not tell us anything more about an object and therefore, it is not a predicate e.g If we say that a perfect house is made of stone, has windows, a door etc we learn about the house. If we then say that this house exists, this tells us nothing more about the qualities of the house. So existence is not a predicate of perfection.
  
  • Kant argued that you can not apply the term “necessary” to a being. It can only be applied to prepositions or analytical statements e.g All unmarried men are bachelors, John is an unmarried man-conclusion - John is a Bachelor is necessary
  • Kant also argued that just because something is logically true, it does not make it true in reality e.g All Queens are female monarchs. Elizabeth is a queen, therefore Elizabeth is a female monarch. This is logically true but to know if Elizabeth exists in reality, we would have to search through empirical evidence. This is the same for God. This is a flaw in the nature of the argument as a priori.

Question 20

How does Frege support Kant?

Answer 20

Frege agrees with Kant that existence is not a property or predicate of perfection, and argues that existence is not a property at all.

Question 21

What example does Frege use?

Answer 21

The King’s carriage is drawn by four horses.
○ The King’s carriage is drawn by thoroughbred horses.
* Frege argues that “thoroughbred” tells us something about the individual horses and so is a property. However, four does not tell us anything about an individual horse. Numbers will only tell us something about an idea or concept, not of an object e.g. in statement 1 above we learn something about horse drawn carriages but we don’t learn anything about individual horses.

Question 22

What does Frege argue about the number 0?

Answer 22

The number 0 is the equivalent to non existence and one is the equivalent to existence. Therefore, existence is like numbers and as numbers are not properties, neither is existence.