Ontological.
AO1 – Knowledge (16 prompts)
What does it mean that Anselm’s ontological argument is a priori and deductive?
Who created the ontological argument and why?
How does a deductive argument guarantee its conclusion if the premises are true?
How does Anselm define God in his first argument (Proslogion 2)?
Why does Anselm argue God must exist in reality and not just as an idea?
How does Gaunilo’s “perfect island” analogy challenge Anselm’s reasoning?
Why does Anselm claim only a being with necessary existence can satisfy the greatest conceivable being?
How does Descartes argue that existence must be included in the concept of a supremely perfect being?
Why does Kant claim adding “exists” to God’s concept doesn’t strengthen the argument?
How does Kant’s ‘denying both subject + predicate’ argument undermine Descartes?
Why does Kant argue treating existence as a predicate makes the ontological argument meaningless?
How does Kant use the triangle analogy to show rejecting God avoids logical contradiction?
How does Hume argue the ontological argument fails to move from idea to reality?
How does Russell use Santa Claus to show existence isn’t a predicate?
How does Stephen Davis challenge Kant with examples like the Loch Ness Monster?
How do Anselm and Descartes argue existence is necessary for God’s nature?
AO2 – Evaluation / Analysis (14 prompts)
How does the ontological argument justify belief in God using a priori reasoning?
Why might empiricists reject the ontological argument, according to Aquinas?
How does Plantinga argue the argument fails for those who cannot grasp God’s concept?
How effective is Gaunilo’s perfect island objection in undermining the argument?
How effective is Aquinas’ criticism that humans cannot fully define God?
How influential is Kant’s critique regarding existence as a predicate?
To what extent do Anselm and Descartes successfully show existence is a necessary part of God’s nature?
What are the strengths of a priori arguments?
What are the weaknesses of a priori arguments according to Hume and Mackie?
Why might defining something into existence be problematic?
How does the ontological argument avoid relying on empirical evidence, and why is this seen as a strength?
How does the a priori deductive method provide certainty compared to a posteriori arguments?
How does Anselm’s definition of God target classical theism specifically?
Overall, how convincing are Anselm + Descartes’ arguments in light of the criticisms by Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant, and Hume?
AO1 – Knowledge (16 answers)
The ontological argument is a priori and deductive, relying on pure logic rather than experience; if premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
St Anselm, an 11th-century monk, created it as a simple proof for God’s existence.
A deductive argument guarantees its conclusion if the premises are true, like “a bachelor is unmarried; George is a bachelor; therefore George is unmarried.”
God is defined as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
God must exist in reality because existing only in the mind is less than being the greatest possible being.
Gaunilo’s “perfect island” analogy shows Anselm’s logic could claim anything must exist if imagined as greatest.
Only a being with necessary existence can be the greatest conceivable being; contingent beings like islands don’t require existence.
Descartes argues a supremely perfect being must possess all perfections, including existence, which is necessary.
Kant says existence isn’t a predicate and adding it doesn’t change a concept’s nature; Descartes cannot define God into existence.
Denying both subject + predicate avoids contradiction; defining God doesn’t ensure God exists in reality.
Treating existence as a predicate is meaningless because it adds nothing new to the idea.
Kant’s triangle analogy shows rejecting a concept entirely avoids contradiction; God’s concept can be rejected without illogicality.
Hume argues existence is synthetic, must be verified by experience, and cannot be proven by idea alone.
Russell uses Santa Claus to show existence isn’t a property; adding “exists” doesn’t make something real.
Descartes claims existence is a necessary predicate; a perfect being cannot be conceived without existence.
Stephen Davis argues things in reality have additional properties, e.g., Loch Ness Monster or 100 coins, so existence adds something to a concept.
AO2 – Evaluation / Analysis (14 answers)
The argument justifies belief in God using a priori deductive logic; if correct, God’s existence follows with certainty.
Empiricists reject it as all knowledge must come from experience; Aquinas prefers a posteriori evidence.
Plantinga argues it fails for those who cannot conceive or understand God’s nature.
Gaunilo’s objection shows the reasoning could “prove” anything, highlighting a flaw.
Aquinas’ criticism points out humans cannot fully define or understand God.
Kant’s critique is influential: existence isn’t a real predicate, so definition doesn’t prove reality.
Anselm and Descartes show existence is necessary for God, but critics challenge whether definition ensures reality.
Strengths: independent of experience, logically deductive, conclusions certain if premises true, focuses on absolute truths.
Weaknesses: relies on definitions, cannot guarantee reality (Mackie, Hume, Kant), conclusions can be rejected.
Defining something into existence is problematic because existence isn’t a property.
Avoids empirical evidence, seen as strength because reasoning is not limited by unreliable senses.
Deductive method provides certainty unlike a posteriori arguments which are probabilistic.
Anselm’s definition directly matches classical theism rather than a lesser being.
Overall, criticisms by Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant, and Hume challenge the argument’s ability to prove God’s existence, keeping it debated.