Ontological Argument

Difference between Prior and Posterior

• Prior: relys on logical deduction and not sense experience

• Posterior: relys on sense experience (experience you face)

Difference between Inductive and Deductive

• Inductive: Inductive arguments are probabilistic (probably true, probably not) since the truth cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises

• Deductive: In a deductive argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true

Difference between Synthetic and Analytic

• Synthetic: Synthetic arguments are statements (or arguments) whose truth or falsity are determined by sense experience.

• Analytic: Analytic arguments are statements (or arguments) that are true by the meaning of the words (e.g, a bachelor is an unmarried man.; the statement is true by definition)

Difference between Necessary and Contingent

• Contingent: Can exist or not exist, depends on other for existance

• Necessary: Always has existed, doesn’t depend on anything to exist

Difference between Subject and Predicate

• Subject: The subject refers to who or what the subject is about. Any complete sentence has a subject and a predicate

• Predicate: Tells us information about the subject

What Type of Argument is the Ontological Argument?

It’s a deductive, analytic, and priori argument that proves the existence of god based on the concept of god

Ontological argument

• The term ontological comes from the Greek ontos, meaning ‘essence’, ‘existence’, ‘being‘

• The ontological argument is based on the claim that God’s existence can be deduced from his definition- that once God is correctly defined, there can be no doubt that he exists

• In the proposition ‘God exists‘, the subject ‘God‘ contains the predicate ‘exists‘, so God must exists.

• God is a necessary being, not a contingent one.

Anselm’s esential claim

• Existence is a predicate of God (it is the property or quality of God’s nature)

• By analysing the word God it will be obvious, according to Anslem that God exists.

• in the statment ‘God exists‘ the subject is God and the predicate is exist

Anselm’s Parts of His Arugment

P1- defintion of god: God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived

P2- A fool understands this defintion, fools say in there hearts “there is no God“

P3- There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing that this idea exists in reality.

P4- Painting exists in mind (of the painter) and in reality (painting)

P5- It is greater to exist both in the mind and in realilty than to exist only in the mind.

P6- If God exist only in the mind, i could think of something greater, namely a God who existed in realilty also.

Conculsion: Therefore in order to be the greatest conceivable being (P1), God must exist both in the mind and in reality

Gaunilo’s response to Anselm

• Gaunilo uses a perfect island analogy and uses Anselms argument against him.

• The method in the way he argues in his response is called ‘argument to absurdity‘ translated from latin.

• Gaunilo suggest that Anselms argument can be used for numerous different perfect objects.

Anslems response to Gaunilo- Version 2

P1- To be perfect, an island would have to be ‘that island than which no greater can be concevied‘

P2: An island than which no greater can be conceived would have to exist necessarily, since a contingent island would be less than perfect.

P3- But islands are contingent, and so cannot exist necessarily.

Conculsion: logic of an island does not apply to God.

Criticisms from Kant

• Anslems claims that existence is a perdicate of God, Kant objects to this as existence is not a real predicate, you would need evidence. He compares this with an example of a coin, we all now a coin exist because we can touch, smell and even hear a coin drop, but whereas with God is more of a concept than a proven existence, we can’t experience God with our senses

• Kant accept the whole necessary bit but can’t accept that God even exist.