Ontological argument

Question 1

What is the basic ontological argument?

Answer 1

P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined)
P2: That than which nothing greater conceived must exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist

Question 2

What type of proof is the ontological argument?

Answer 2

A priori

Question 3

What is the purpose of proof?

Answer 3

1) To provide a complete explanation
2) They appeal to reason, logic and evidence to support a view or an argument
3) To give meaning to phenomena- theists will interpret certain evidence in terms of God rather than anything else

Question 4

What is an analytic statement?

Answer 4

True by definition. In other words, the conclusion of the proof is contained within the premise. E.g. Roses are flowers

Question 5

What is an synthetic statement?

Answer 5

A proposition where the predicate is attached to the subject but not contained within it. In other words, the conclusion is not contained within the premise. E.g. Lawyers are wise.

Question 6

What is a predicate?

Answer 6

What is said about the subject. A quality or property of an object or subject. E.g. The boy kicks the ball

Question 7

What is a priori?

Answer 7

Independent on experience

Question 8

What is a posteriori?

Answer 8

Dependent on experience

Question 9

Strengths of a priori arguments

Answer 9

• Logically necessary conclusions- provided the premises are analytically true

Question 10

Weaknesses of a priori arguments

Answer 10

• Leads to only apparently logically necessary conclusions
• Depends on whether we accept the premise are analytically true
• Can only say that IF there is a God, we might be able to make certain claims about him, since we do not know that God exists or what God is like

Question 11

Strengths of a posteriori arguments

Answer 11

• Uses evidence based on experience

- Empirical evidence is open to different interpretations

Question 12

Weaknesses of a posteriori arguments

Answer 12

• Reliability of experience
• Relies on accepting the nature of the evidence
• Demands overwhelming good reasons for accepting that the conclusion is the most likely

Question 13

What does ontological mean?

Answer 13

Concerned with ‘being’ or ‘existence’ e.g. God’s being

Question 14

How is the ontological argument differ from all the other classical arguments for the existence of God?

Answer 14

Ontological argument is a priori argument whilst the rest are a posteriori.

Question 15

What is Anselm First Form argument (Proslogion Ch.2)?

Answer 15

1. God is the greatest possible being
   2) If God exists in the mind alone, then a greater being could be imagined to exist both in mind and in reality
   3) This being would then be greater than God
   4) Thus God cannot exist only as an idea in the mind
   5) Therefore God exists both in the mind (in intellectu) and in reality (de re)

Question 16

Why does Anselm argues that God’s existence is logically necessary (de dicto) in the above argument?

Answer 16

It is self contradictory to be able to imagine God as the greatest possible being and yet deny that he exists. Existence is a predicate making “God exists” analytic.

Question 17

Key strengths of Anselm argument above

Answer 17

1) A priori leads to a logically necessary conclusion
2) Descartes supports the ontological argument
3) Believes God is more than imagination

Question 18

Key weaknesses of Anselm argument above

Answer 18

1) Lacks empirical proof
2) No evidence or experience provided
3) What does it mean by existing in reality and mind?- too vague
4) God is not an object of proof- faith does not rely on evidence - Kant
5) Circular argument
6) It would be contradictory to claim that God is the greatest possible being

Question 19

What does “I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand”- Anselm?

Answer 19

• Putting his faith in order to understand

- Anselm never doubted the experience of God; uses reason to justify a belief

Question 20

What is Gaunilo criticism of Anselm’s 1st Form argument?

Answer 20

• Defends on Behalf on the Fool
• He believed in God but rejected Anselm’s deductive argument because we cam use it to define anything in the existence, provided it has the property of being the ‘greatest’ or most “excellent”
• God’s real existence is doubtful without further existence (empirical proof)
• Uses the Island Analogy

Question 21

What is the Island Analogy?

Answer 21

Imagine a perfect island but in reality it doesn’t exist. This means that not always your imagination can be in reality.

Question 22

Gaunilo’s argument conclusion

Answer 22

1) One can have a concept of God but you cannot move from concept to reality
2) Cannot define a concept into existence- you need empirical proof

Question 23

What is Anselm’s 2nd form (Proslogion, Chapter 3)?

Answer 23

1) God is the greatest being imaginable
2) It is greater to be a necessary being cannot be than a contingent being (can cease to exist)
3) If God exists only as a contingent being, he can be imagined not to exist, then a greater being could be imagined that cannot not exist
4) This being would be greater than God
5) Therefore, God is a necessary being and must exist in reality ( de re necessary being)

Question 24

Strengths of Anselm’s argument above

Answer 24

For those theists e.g. Anselm & Descartes who believe that existence is a necessary attribute God. Existence is a predicate

Question 25

Weaknesses of Anselm's argument above

Answer 25

- Existence is NOT a predicate - The concept of a necessary being still lacks empirical proof- still only a concept - Cannot prove God- Kant

Question 26

Background details on Descartes argument

Answer 26

1) God has stamped the idea of God into every person 2) The truth of God's existence, like the truth of mathematics cannot be doubted once it has been clearly demonstrated 3) Demonstrating God's existence is not about proving God exists but showing that there is no reason to doubt his existence

Question 27

What is Descartes version of the ontological argument?

Answer 27

1) God is perfect (part of God's nature) 2) Existence is a necessary attribute of perfection ( a predicate of God) 3) Therefore, God exists "God is perfect" is analytic- a logically necessary truth

Question 28

What is Descartes Triangle analogy?

Answer 28

"Triangle analogy"- logically necessary that every triangle must have 3 side and 3 angles

Question 29

What is Descartes mountain analogy?

Answer 29

Logically necessary that every mountain must have a valley

Question 30

What is Kant objection to Descartes argument?

Answer 30

- Existence is not a predicate - Agrees by triangle by definition. However, a triangle is a concept - No contradiction in rejecting the WHOLE CONCEPT OF A TRIANGLE - A triangle is nothing but a idea

Question 31

What is Kant objections to the ontological argument?

Answer 31

1) God's existence is NOT logically necessary 2) Existence is not a predicate 3) A triangle is only a mathematical concept and can be rejected (in response to Descartes argument)

Question 32

God's existence is NOT logically necessary- KANT

Answer 32

- The only sort of necessity is in found in grammar or in mathematics. No necessary propositions about existence - What is logically possible may not be onto-logically possible (exist outside the mind) - Does not mean there are any triangles or any unicorns (in actuality)

Question 33

Existence is not a predicate- KANT

Answer 33

- The word "exists" does not tell us what an object is like- does not add anything to the concept (not a predicate) - A concept is NOT made any greater by adding the word "exists" - E.g. the concept of a £100 is not made any greater by adding the word exists, since is is only a concept in the mind All statements to do with existence have to be treated synthetically

Question 34

What is Hume's objection?

Answer 34

We cannot define something into existence. No matter how much we define a concept we must seek external evidence to prove that it exists

Question 35

What is Aquinas objection to the ontological argument ?

Answer 35

1) Impossible to know God's nature 2) Existence needs to be treated synthetically 3) God's existence must be proven empirically