PHL101 - Does God Exist and Anselms Ontological Argument

The Standard Monotheistic Conception of God

The idea that there exists a unique, supremely perfect being that is the creator of the world - Supreme perfection is at minimum considered to include attributes such as, omnipotence, and omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

Define omnipotence, and omniscience, and omnibenevolence in as they exist under the SMC of God

Omnipotence - being is able to do anything that is possible to do, is not limited to a body or ‘maximum possibilities’, what is possible and impossible is considered ion the broadest sense - not what is possible according to the laws of nature or probability,

Omniscience - the ability to know anything that is possible to know, all knowing, possessing complete and infinite knowledge of the past, present and future

Omnibenevolence - being morally good to the highest degree

Define Creator of the World in terms of the SMC of God

The SMC does not necessarily argue that god built the world brick by brick (although the bible does), but that god is always and everywhere, the cause of existence and sustains the universe in every moment. God is compatible with the idea that the world/universe has always existed - God is less of a being and more of a force or necessary existence that reality is founded on

List different positions regarding the SMC

Theist- god exists and we have certain knowledge that god does

Atheist - God does not exist and we have certain knowledge that god does not

Agnostic - we can not have certain knowledge on whether god exists therefore should withhold judgement

What does Anselm set out to do with his arguement?

“To convince the fool (atheist) who has said in his heart there is no god”

he argues for the SMC using the field of ontology (ontos greek for being/reality, the study of what is real), argument has 2 stages

What is the 1st stage of the argument?

P1 We can think about God.
P2 Whatever we can think about exists in the mind.
C1 Therefore, God exists in the mind.

What is the second stage of the argument?

C2 Therefore, either God exists in the mind alone or God exists both in the mind and in reality.
P5 If X exists in the mind alone, then X is not perfect.

P6 Therefore, if God exists in the mind alone, then God is not perfect.
P7 God is perfect.
P8 Therefore, God does not exist in the mind alone.
C3 Therefore, God exists both in the mind and in reality.

Describe the ‘painting analogy’ in relation the Anselms arguement

If you have a conception of a painting, then you can produce that painting, therefore putting it into reality or making it real

The same idea can be applied to god - if you have a conception of it, it can be made into reality

anselms says yes this is true, but that it would be inappropriate to assume god has the same material properties as a painting, and thus his argument require the 2nd stage of reasoning

God as a necessary being

Prof john is not a necessary being, as the world would exist without him in it

God is a necessary being, as the world would not exist without god unpinning its existence

it is impossible for there to be nothing, God is necessary and so there must be something

What is A Priori argument?

Argument that, if one can rationally believe it, one does not need to undergo a sensory experience to believe it or have justified true belief

Objections to Anselm?

Guanilos- Says it is too good to be true, is this logic applies top god, it must apply to a perfect island, but no such island exists

Just because something is understood by the indv doesn’t mean it exists in the mind or reality - conception/thoughts do not equate to existence, thoughts are not ‘real’ - “existing in the mind” means one can comprehending and articulate a thought

Step 5 objections - step 5 assumes that existing in reality is greater than existing in mind, assumes that existing in reality automatically makes your greater (or closer to perfection) than in the mind

Step 5 assumes existing in reality is a property of existing, it is a “great making” property - some argue existence is not a property of what exists, but a pre-condition to existence