Ontological argument

Define what the ontological argument is

A priori deductive argument . Premises true conclusion must be true for the existence of God .

Outline the fundamental ontological argument

P1. God is the greatest possible being

P2. It is greater to exist in reality than just as an idea

C. God exists in reality

Outline St Anselm’s ontological argument

P1. God’s the greatest possible being

P2. Greater to exist in both understanding and reality than merely in understanding

P3. Greatest possible being , genuinely greatest , exist both in understanding + reality

C. God exists in reality + understanding

Outline Gaulino’s perfect island criticism

Imagine perfect island .

Follow Anselm’s logic , greater exist in reality as well as imagination . Greatest possible island must exist

Absurd . Reductio ad absurdum . . Imagine it , exists in understanding does not equivalate to existence .

Definition does not mean it is in existence

E.g. unicorn real

Reply to Gaulino’s criticism , Anselm’s 2nd argument

P1. God greatest possible being

P2. Being that necessarily exists in reality greater than existing contingently

P3. God exists in mind as an idea , God exists necessarily in reality

P4. God exists in mind as an idea

C. God necessarily exists in reality

Outline Descartes Ontological argument

P1. What I understand clearly and distinctly must be true

P2. Clearly understand God as supremely perfect being

P3. Supremely perfect being contains all supreme perfections

P4. Existence is supreme perfection

C. God supremely perfect being

Criticism of Descartes argument

Existence is not a predicate

P1. Genuine predicate adds to our understanding , helps determine what it is

P2. Existence adds nothing to our understanding

P3. Existence not real predicate

Descartes argument fails

Example - scrunched paper

Response to Kant’s criticism of Descartes

Necessary existence , property unlike other contingent things , unique . Does add to understanding

Criticism of Desecrate response to Kant criticism

Hume’s Fork

Things true by definition /experience.

God exists not true by definition

Imagine it different need experience to justify it

Imagine God not existing Fails

can’t establish existence a priori

Response to Hume’s Fork criticism

Self refuting can’t have experience of all truths such as physics ones or mathematical throughout time cannot prove that

Outline Malcom’s argument

P1. God greatest possible being

P2. Excludes contingent beings , depend on other things , not as great as necessary beings , do not depend on anything else

P3. Existence of God logically necessary or logically impossible

C1. No contradiction in idea of God

C2. God existence necessary

Outline a criticism of Malcom Argument , Paradox of the stone

P1. God is omnipotent

P2. If God is omnipotent then he can or cannot create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it

P3. If God can create the stone he cannot lift it , so there’s one thing God cannot do

P4. If he cannot create the stone then there is one thing that God cannot do

C. Therefore there is at least one thing God can't do god is not omnipotent

Response to criticism paradox of the stone

Not that God cannot , the question is a leading question and has contradiction .

Like asking a fish to breathe on land impossible or make round squares