Essay Plan - Ontological Argument

‘Anselm’s Ontological Argument proves God exists logically.’ Discuss. (40 Marks):

• Introduction:

  • 1 - The ontological argument tries to define G-d into existence.

  • 2 - It is not a logical proof, but it shouldn’t be held to that standard anyway.

  • 3 - Gaunilo presents a counter to Anselm that is a strawman.

• P1:

• Intro:

  • Define Anselm’s G-d definition.

• Argument:

  • Anselm’s Ontological Argument - part one.

  • Painter Analogy.

  • Explain how it is A priori.

• Counter:

  • Russell - you can’t define something into existence, you cannot make a square circle exist just by calling it a necessarily existent square circle.

  • Norman Malcolm - could not support Anselm’s first argument as existence is not a characteristic.

• Conclusion:

  • Although Anselm tries, you cannot define G-d into existence.

• P2:

• Intro:

  • It is not an A priori concept.

  • Define A posteriori.

• Argument:

  • Explain how it relies on experience, A posteriori, imagining G-d could be considered experiencing Him.

  • Second part of Anselm’s ontological argument, the same as prime mover.

  • Relies on the principle of causality, essentially A posteriori.

  • Not logical, it’s empirical.

• Counter:

  • Principle of causality is a synthetic A priori concept, it is not derived by experience or logic, but by the nature of the things involved.

  • Karl Barth on Faith - You cannot attain knowledge of G-d through reason, if we had the mental capacity to understand G-d and prove his existence, faith would not be necessary.

  • Therefore, you cannot prove G-d through just reason, so it can’t be A priori, so you can’t hold it to that standard.

• Conclusion:

  • The ontological argument is A posteriori, and it would be impossible for it be A priori.

• P3:

• Intro:

• Argument:

  • Guanilo’s counter to Anselm - the island.

  • You can imagine something in your mind, but it not exist in reality.

  • Bertrand Russell - things are only meaningful if they refer to an ‘instance’ of something - something you can see, you can’t see G-d.

• Counter:

  • Descartes argument for G-d, G-d being a supremely perfect being.

  • Plantinga’s modal ontological argument.

  • An island cannot be omnibenevolent as it does that have the ability to think or feel.

• Conclusion:

  • Guanilo’s counter to Anselm is a strawman.

‘Assess the claim that existence is a predicate. (40 Marks):

• Introduction:

  • 1 - Kant shows that existence is not a predicate.

  • 2 - Anselm tries to show that existence is a predicate, but Gaunilo disproves this via reductio ad absurdum.

  • 3 - It is impossible to know whether existence is a predicate as we must rely on faith.

• P1:

• Intro:

  • Explain cogito ergo sum, Descartes doubted everything.

• Argument:

  • Kant on ontological argument, existence is not a predicate.

  • Norman Malcolm - could not support Anselm’s first argument as existence is not a characteristic.

• Counter:

  • Kant claims existence is not a characteristic, then precedes to characterise that some things are real and some aren’t.

  • Descartes argument for God, God being a supremely perfect being.

  • Existence must be a predicate of God by his definition.

• Conclusion:

  • Although Kant argues that existence is not a predicate, it is clear that by the very nature of God he must exist.

• P2:

• Intro:

  • Definition of God, TTWNGCBC

• Argument:

  • Anselm’s Ontological Argument - part one.

  • Painter Analogy.

  • Explain how it is A priori.

• Counter:

  • Gaunilo’s counter to Anselm.

  • Russell - you can’t define something into existence, you cannot make a square circle exist just by calling it a necessarily existent square circle.

• Conclusion:

  • Guanilo’s use of reductio ad absurdum, shows that Anselm defines God into existence, invalidating it as a predicate.

• P3:

• Intro:

  • Fideism - someone who uses faith rather than reason in philosophical and religious matters.

• Argument:

  • Karl Barth on faith - cannot attain knowledge of God through reason, if we had the mental capacity to understand God, faith would not be necessary.

  • Principle of causality is a synthetic A priori concept, it is not derived by experience or logic, but by the nature of the things involved.

  • Therefore, we must rely on faith to show that existence is a predicate, as it is not reasonable, and we cannot use empiricism, as our senses can deceive us.

• Counter:

  • Second part of Anselm’s argument, we can show God by reason, existence can be shown to be a predicate.

  • Alvin Plantinga’s Modal ontological argument.

  • It is possible to show God’s existence via reason as opposed to faith, meaning existence can be shown to a predicate.

• Conclusion:

  • Although Anslem and Plantinga attempt to prove it rationally, there is a fundamental faith-based aspect, meaning existence cannot be known to be a predicate.

Critically evaluate the view that the ontological argument contains a number of logical fallacies which nullify the conclusion that God exists. (40 Marks):

• Introduction:

  • 1 - The ontological argument tries to define God into existence.

  • 2 - Gaunilo tries to use reductio ad absurdum to dismiss the ontological argument, but fails.

  • 3 - It is not a logical proof, but it shouldn’t be held to that standard anyway, it may contain fallacies, but that is fine.

• P1:

• Intro:

  • Define Anselm’s God definition.

• Argument:

  • Anselm’s Ontological Argument - part one.

  • Painter Analogy.

  • If you accept the definition of God as presented by Anselm, then by virtue of pure logic, you must accept his premises and conclusion.

• Counter:

  • Russell - you can’t define something into existence, you cannot make a square circle exist just by calling it a necessarily existent square circle.

  • Norman Malcolm - could not support Anselm’s first argument as existence is not a characteristic.

• Conclusion:

  • Although Anselm tries, you cannot define G-d into existence.

• P2:

• Intro:

  • Explain reductio ad absurdum.

• Argument:

  • Gaunilo’s counter to Anselm.

  • Bertrand Russell - things are only meaningful if they refer to an ‘instance’ of something, it is not meaningful to refer to the greatest possible being, as meaningful statements must refer to something that exists.

  • You can imagine something in your mind, and have it not exist in reality.

• Counter:

  • Russell has arbitrarily decided when a statement is meaningful, his statement itself is meaningless.

  • Alvin Plantinga’s modal ontological argument, an island has no intrinsic maxim, it can always be improved, whereas God cannot always be improved.

  • Descartes response to Gaunilo - his argument can only be applied to objects affected by time and space, God is not.

• Conclusion:

  • Gaunilo and Russell fail to show how the ontological argument is fallacious, instead provide a list of strawmen.

• P3:

• Intro:

  • It is not an A priori concept.

  • Define A posteriori.

• Argument:

  • Explain how it relies on experience, A posteriori, imagining G-d could be considered experiencing Him.

  • Second part of Anselm’s ontological argument, the same as prime mover.

  • Relies on the principle of causality, essentially A posteriori.

  • Not logical, it’s empirical.

• Counter:

  • Principle of causality is a synthetic A priori concept, it is not derived by experience or logic, but by the nature of the things involved.

  • Karl Barth on Faith - You cannot attain knowledge of G-d through reason, if we had the mental capacity to understand G-d and prove his existence, faith would not be necessary.

  • Therefore, you cannot prove G-d through just reason, so it can’t be A priori, so you can’t hold it to that standard.

• Conclusion:

  • The ontological argument is A posteriori, and it would be impossible for it be A priori.

“A priori arguments for God’s existence are more persuasive than a posteriori arguments”. Discuss (40 Marks):