Ontological argument

Anselm’s first formulation

P1: God is Gcb

P2: god may exist in either mind alone or mind and reality

P3: something which exists in reality is greater than mind alone

Conclusion: therefore as greatest conceivable being god must exist in reality as well as mind

Anselms second formulation

P1: god is GCb

P2: something which cannot be thought not to exist is greater than something which can be thought to not exist

P3: thereofore as the Gcb this being cannot be thought to not exist

Conclusion: thefore god has neccesarry existence

Guinallo’s critique with island

if we replace god with an island we see the arguments fallacious nature. You cannot define something into existence

‘If I were to describe the most perfect Island then state that it must exist because of its perfection. You would be a fool to believe me

Anselms response to gaunilo

believed cannot compare god to an island because island has a contingent existence whereas gods existence is necessary

aquinas on anselm

believed gods existence can only be demonstrated through aposteriori arguments and questions whether we can assume everyone has same understand of God as GCb

descartes contemporary

kant

anslems contemporary

gaunilo

descartes argument

P1:God is a supremely perfect being; P2: existence is a predicate of a perfect being conclusion: Therefore, God must exist.

predicate

attribute

descartes examples

gods existence cannot be seperated from his essence no more than 3 angles adding up to 180 a triangle or a moutain its valleys

descartes on limitations of examples

we may not be able to think of a moutain without its valley this doesnt mean the combination has to exist in the real world. God is different because he involves perfections however

Kant critique of ontological arguments

existence is not a predicate. saying something exist doesnt tell us anything about a characteristic just that a concept has been actualised.

kant and prussian money

the concept of 100 dollars is not added to if we then add a real 100 dollars to it.

A hundred real dollars contains no more than a hundred possible dollars

anselms likely defence

he would argue like he did against gaunilo that 100 dollars has contingent existence so its not the same as gods neccesarry existence

malcoms responce to kants critique of existance as a predicate

argues that perhaps existence in the ordinary kind is not a predicate but when talking about gods necessary existence it is a predicate

MAlcoms formulation

P1: if god does not exist today then he never can and never will

P2: if god does exist then he must do so necessarily rather than contingently

P3: gods existence is either necessary or impossible

P4: God’s existence is not impossible it is logically contradictory to have the concept of a god who exists

P5: therefore given that Gods existence is not impossible it must be neccesarry

Betrand Russell criticism france example

asks us to think of statement present king of france is bald. not true but also doesnt mean present king of france isnt bald as there is no king. saying god is gcb is meaningless until we prove god exists, just like saing king of france is bald is meaningless as no king of france.

Brussell explained predicates

we cannot apply predicates to something which existence is uknown

brussell on existance as predicate

you cannot say existence is a predicate otherwise you could say 1) Men exist, 2) Father Christmas is a man 3) Father Christmas exists – this is syllogism

a strengh of Ontological argument based on definition

the definition of God Anselm uses is logically, theologically and philosophically sound. he uses analogy that we cant look at sun but can still see daylight like how we cant fully comprehend god but understand he is GCB

gaunillo critique of p3 of anselm 1st formulation

he argues that god does not exist in the mind as christhian theology says he is beyond comprehension

Hume critique of neccesarry existence

Hume argues whatever we can conceive of as existence we can conceive of as not existing

Hasthorne critique

the ontological argument shows at best that if god is logically possible then god neccesarilly exists but doesnt show that god is logically possible.