Ontological arguments

Question 1

analytic vs synthetic (predicate)

Answer 1

• A PREDICATE tells us about properties or relations had by the things our language is about
• Eg a bear is an animal → a bear is already defined as being an animal
• ANALYTIC statements: where the predicate is contained within the object (see above)
• SYNTHETIC statements: where the predicate is not included within the subject (all bears are black → being black isn’t a requirement of being a bear’

Question 2

Gods existence and predicate

Answer 2

‘Exists’ is the predicate → is the concept of existing contained within the idea of God??

Question 3

summary of the ontological argument

Answer 3

• Proslogion (prayer, discourse) → begins from a position of faith, and he seeks to prove with evidence
• FIDES QUAERENS INTELLECTUM → faith seeking understanding
• Unique from other arguments as it calls to shut away from observation and look within your mind
• Vardy: the ontological argument is a ‘totally different argument’, Russell believe it was logically sound
• Does not claim to have experience as the start point
• It claims to arrive at the existence of God by analysing the idea of God
• If it succeeds then belief in God is a matter of logic

Question 4

part 1 of anselms proslogion –> gods definition(what is it) and existence

Answer 4

1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. This is a definition which even a fool understands in his mind, even though he does not understand it to exist in reality.
   - A PRIORI + DEDUCTIVE + ANALYTIC
   - This definition is a PREDICATE as it is contained within the idea of God
   - Universal definition that even a fool can understand
   - Agrees with religions: no other being pertains to this definition
2. There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing that this idea exists in reality → a painter has an idea in his mind of what he wants to paint, but when he has painted it that idea now exists in both in his mind and reality
   - Difference between CONCEPTUAL existence and ACTUAL existence

Question 5

part 2 anselms proslogion –> predicate of being the greatest

Answer 5

1. It is greater to exist both in the mind and in reality than to exist only in the mind
   - IN INTELLECTU: in the mind
   - IN INTELLECTU + IN RE: in the mind and reality
   - Something real and conceptual is greater than just a concept → GREATEST has both, so existence is a QUALITY OF GREATNESS
2. If God existed only in the mind, I could think of something greater, namely a God who existed in reality also
   - God has to be the greatest BY DEFINITION (a priori)
3. Therefore, in order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must exist both in the mind and in reality
   - ‘Therefore, something than which greater cannot
   Be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and
   Reality’

Question 6

anselms use of reducto ad absurdum

Answer 6

• Reductio ad absurdum: the fools position,
• Who says there is no God, is stupid as the
• Definition of God is absolute

Question 6

Gaunilo of Marmoutier’s objection to anselms argument

Answer 6

• Gaulino invokes the scenario of the greatest possible island. This island probs doesn’t exist but if we follow Anselm’s argument then we aren’t thinking of the greatest possible island, because then it would exist by definition, so it must exist.
• Gaulino argued that this line of argument was no less absurd than Anselm’s OG argument for God
• Greatest in definition conceptually =/ it must exist; does not work for island so does not work for God

Gaulino argues
- You cannot determine something into existence
- There is no accepted definition of God
- Imaginary does not make something a reality

• Overload objections: uses alot of examples that don’t work using the argument, and tests the argument → reductio ad absurdum

Question 7

Anselms reply to gaunilo

Answer 7

Gaulino’s problem: the definition of perfection is subjective → this is why Anselm describes God is the GREATEST not as PERFECT
- No accepted definition
- No maximum to perceived perfection

Anselm is concerned with NECESSARY BEINGS not TEMPORAL CONTINGENT THINGS ROOTED IN TIME AND SPACE → God is Necessary and does not depend on other things for his causation

Question 8

Anselm’s 2nd Ontological argument

(why is necessity greater than contingency)

Answer 8

• God is TTWNGCBC (APriori statement)
• Necessary existence> contingent existence, greater to be Necessary
• God is Necessary, as Necessity is a quality of greatest → disagreeing in foolish, RaA as it is a predicate of God to be the greatest and therefore Necessary

Question 9

3 main criticisms of anselms argument

Answer 9

1. The definition of God
2. The possibility of deriving existence claims from definition
3. Existence as a predicate of God

Question 10

thomas aquinas’ criticisms of anslems argument

Answer 10

• Wasn’t impressed with Anselm’s original argument → arguing God’s existence as A PRIORI, as he believed we should argue God’s existence from observation
• Any definition of God is based upon faith (his transcendence), so God as TTWNGCBC is based upon faith → Anselm’s argument is actually A POSTERIORI
• This weakens the argument as now it has a PROBABLE conclusion, and can be found to be false
• As weak and limited human beings, we cannot have a clear understanding of God
• He disagrees with Anselm’s assumption that even the fool can understand God intellectu, as only God can understand God (transcendent)

Question 11

david’s hume criticisms of ontological

Answer 11

• Through observation, we can see contingency can contradict the existence of anything
• Therefore, there is no Necessity in the universe, so why would God be the Necessary being
• God is transcendent?? But the argument is still A Posteriori

Question 12

immanuel kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument

Answer 12

• you cannot define something into existence
• You may not be able to deny the predicate and accept the subject, but It is possible to deny the predicate and the subject altogether
• Existence is not a predicate
• It does not change the definition of the subject, but simply says it can be found in the real world
• ‘There is a God and he does not exist’ does not make any sense because existence is not a quality God can have in the first place, unlike ‘there is a God and he is omnibenevolent’

Question 13

bertrand russell and predicates –> criticisms of the ontological argument

Answer 13

• all ontological arguments are ‘cases of bad grammar’
• Predicative statements show the description of something and existential statements which show something actually exist
• He believes the ontological argument is MEANINGLESS as its language does not conform to states of affair in reality → eg talking about a cow existing and a unicorn, as everyday language makes it easy to talk about non-real things as if they exist in reality
• using predictive statements to describe something but it does not need to be existential

Question 14

arguments supporting anselms ontological argument

Answer 14

• Charles Hartshorne: he is not assuming that existence is predicate in his second O argument, but he was claiming Necessary existence was greater
• Peter Van Ingwagen: Necessary existence is a predicate, not normal existence, as it is more meaningful to possess it
• Karl Barth: not meant to persuade Atheists to believe in God but is a devotional exercise for those who already have faith in God to help them better understand his nature
• Alvin Plantinga: the ontological argument shows that belief is not contrary to reason → if it shows religious belief is reasonable, then other A posteriori arguments (tel, cos) or religious experiences to show it is also true