RS a level PHILOSOPHY - ontological argument

content and evaluation

what is the Ontological argument

an argument for God’s existence using a priori and deductive reasoning

what is a predicate

a description of a subject, similar to an adjective

what is a subject

the thing being discussed - the agent

what is a necessary being

one that must exist; not depending on anything for its existence

quote to describe St Anselm’s approach

“faith seeking understanding”

what is Anselm’s definition of God? (exact quote)

“that than which nothing greater can be concieved”

what are the two forms of Anselm’s argument, in order

an existent being would be greater than an imaginary being, so God must exist in reality (in re) rather than mind (in intellectu).

God is unsurpassable in every way, so he must have necessary existence; necessary existence is part of the definition of God

what is an analytic statement

true by definition, which is only arrived at through deduction

what is a synthetic statment

experience is needed to confirm its accuracy

which analogy does Gaunilo use to criticize Anselm

the greatest island can be thought of, but does not exist

how did Anselm reply to the island analogy

it does not apply because God is necessary and the island is contingent, and zgod’s greatness is a kind of ultimate greatness that is beyond the possible greatness of a finite island

how did Aquinas criticize Anselm

we must use both a posteriori and a priori, we cannot know God’s nature

summarise Descartes’ argument

knowledge of God is innate. God has all perfections and existence is a perfection so he must exist

as God is perfect he is unchanging, so he must have always existed, making him necessary

how did Kant criticize ontological arguments

existence is not a predicate; essentially a category error to use existence as a characteristic

which analogy did Kant use to show that existence is not a predicate

coins. imagine 100 coins. now imagine 100 coins that exist. nothing changes

summarise Russel’s argument

applying predicates to a being who’s existence is uncertain is meaningless. used the King of France example

summarise Malcom’s argument

if God does not exist today than his existence must be impossible, as a being with the greatness of God cannot be caused. if God does exist, he must exist necessarily. it is nonsensical to say God’s existence is impossible, so he must exist necessarily

quote from Psalm 14:1 that provides Anselm’s starting point

“the fool says in his heart there is no God”; atheists know the existence of that who they reject

quote from Anselm supporting an a priori approach

“it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree”

3 criticisms form Gaunilo on Anselm other than the island analogy

no universal understanding of God

You cannot define something into existence

we can imagine god’s non-existence as much as we can imagine his existence

Anselm’s painter analogy to show the distinction between existence in intellectu and in re

whe the painter imagines the painting, it exists In intellectu; once it is painted it exists both in intellectu and in re

Kant’s triangle analogy to show that God only necessarily exists if he exists in the first place

A triangle necessarily has three angles but only if the triangle exists in the first place; the logic of the ontological argument is circular

why does Aquinas reject a priori arguments

we can’t know the definition of God

all language about God is analogous so can’t build an argument on it

quote from Augustine criticizing defining God

“if you claim that you have grasped Him, what you have grasped is not God”

Hume criticising ontological arguments

you cannot think of a being that cannot exist - you can always think of that being not existing