Ontological argument

Question 1

who wrote the Ontological argument

Answer 1

Anslem

Question 2

what type of argument is the Ontological argument

Answer 2

A priori, deductive argument which claims to demonstrate that the statement God exists is analytically true - meaning it would be nonsense or incoherent to doubt God’s existence

Question 3

what is ontology

Answer 3

the nature of being

Question 4

what does the Ontological argument claim

Answer 4

once you have understood the meaning of the word God, e.g. the nature of God’s being, you must recognise that God exists. But so the argument is dependent on one’s understanding of the nature of God

Question 5

how did Anselm define God for the Ontological argument

Answer 5

as that than which nothing greater can be conceived

Question 6

if God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived why does that mean he exists? (O)

Answer 6

because £1000 in mind isn’t as great as £10 in reality as it has the extra quality of existence and if he didn’t exist then the he wouldn’t be the greatest conceivable being

Question 7

what does Anselm’s ontological argument depends on

Answer 7

ones understanding of the nature of God and their belief in his definition of God and the assumption that existence in the mind and reality is greater than existence in the mind alone

Question 8

discuss existence as a predicate of God in the Ontological argument

Answer 8

• intrinsic property or quality of something
• predicate of a rose species might be its form or fragrance
• tells us something about the nature of a thing
• predicate of a widow is that husband has died, it is the nature of being a widow so you don’t have to specify the quality
• Anslem claims it is part of God’s nature that he exists
• God has to exist as a an idea in mind not as great as reality as doesn’t have intrinsic property of existence and thus god wouldn’t be greatest conceivable being

Question 9

in the second version of the Ontological argument what point does Anselm add

Answer 9

it is impossible for this being, God, not to exist, ‘this being’ has to exist. If you say God doesn’t exist you are contradicting yourself because it is a part of his nature as the greatest possible being to exist.

Question 10

discuss God’s existence as necessary in the ontological argument

Answer 10

• two modes of existence: contingent and necessary
• because of the way the notion of God is properly defined, it thus follows that God must be conceived as having necessary existence as the divine mode of being. The argument concludes what has necessary existence must necessarily existence and therefore God exists.
• stops the infinite chain of causation

Question 11

what is the difference between contingent and necessary existence

Answer 11

contingent:
- belongs to an object that happens to exist but whose non-existence is equally conceivable e.g. a flower

necessary:

• cannot not exist, must exist at all times
• it is self-contradictory to think of such an object coming into existence or being caused by anything other than itself and equally self-contradictory to think of it being destroyed by anything other than itself or simply ceasing to be
• superior to contingent
• stops the infinite chain of causation

Question 12

who criticizes Anselm and it what

Answer 12

• Gaunilo in his argument on behalf of the fool

- Kant

Question 13

what three criticisms did Gaunilo give

Answer 13

• Gossip
• Defining things into existence
• The perfect island

Question 14

discuss Gaunilo’s criticism of gossip and defining things into existence

Answer 14

Gossip: the fool could have in mind all sorts of things that don’t exist in reality. People hear things from gossip but is unreliable as the person and question in event may have been made up to trick you

Defining things into existence: you cannot demonstrate the existence of something by just having an idea about it

Question 15

discuss Gaunilo’s criticism of the perfect island

Answer 15

• you cannot doubt this island actually exists somewhere in reality because it exists in your understanding and as it is the best it must necessarily exist in reality
• your proving its existence with no certainty and your a fool to accept it
• whilst the most perfect island can be conceived of it doesn’t mean it exists
• it is illogical and the argument is a joke

Question 16

what was Anselm’s response to Gaunilo’s perfect island criticism

Answer 16

• God’s existence is necessary the island’s is not and it has contingent existence
• the island doesn’t have to exist but god does as his definition is the greatest conceivable being
• Anselm argued against Gaunilo that if you conceive of the greatest possible being you conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist
• Gaunilo’s island is not a thing which cannot be conceived not to exist

Question 17

what was Alvin Plantinga’s response to Gaunilo’s criticisms

Answer 17

• suggested that Anselm could also reply by suggesting however great and island is there could always be a better one as there is no intrinsic maximum to the quantity of things the island can have
• but on the other hand god is maximally great in Anselm’s thought therefore greatest island/being not comparable
• god not thought of as the greatest but the greatest thing that can be thought of

Question 18

what were the criticisms of Kant

Answer 18

• it’s impossible for humans to fruitfully engage in questions about existence/nature of God
• any idea we have about God is just that an idea
• humans have never experienced the totality of God and therefore can only offer speculative ideas that aren’t based on experience

Question 19

what does Kant claim

Answer 19

• that a statement like God exists is a synthetic statement because God’s existence is not a logical truth
• he also adds existence is not a predicate meaning saying X exists doesn’t actually tell us anything about X
• when we say there is a God we don’t attach a new predicate to the idea of God
• existence is not an extra quality

Question 20

what other objections are there to the Ontological argument

Answer 20

• nature of god is mysterious we don’t have an idea of him only a verbal symbol, the word God
• the term god doesn’t denote a conceivable thing
• relies on our concept of God as a starting point for deductive argument !!!

Question 21

what does Aquinas say about the Ontological argument and how would Anselm respond

Answer 21

• rejects claims that the existence of God is self-evident to humans
• humans are not in a position to understand God’s nature and hence cannot know God exists is an analytic statement
• Aquinas prefers teleo or cosmo as they are synthetic that look for evidence to prove God’s existence
• anselm would argue that proof does not require a complete understanding of God but only that whatever else god may be there is no such greater being that can be conceived
• even the fool must admit this before refusal to believe