THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Premise 1 Premise 2 Premise 3 God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. Existing in understanding and reality is better than existing in just understanding. God must exist in reality as to only exist in understanding would mean that things that existed in reality were better than Him and God is by definition the best.

THE STRENGTHS OF ANSELM’S ARGUMENT DEDUCTIVE COMMON STARTING POINT LOGICAL EXPLANATION Because it is deductive, it is not reliant on evidence (that may turn out to be wrong). If the claim is valid, it will be proof for both the believer and the atheist as it will demonstrated by logic. The atheist accepts the definition that God is that which nothing greater than that which can be conceived – they just don’t believe that such a being exists. God therefore exists in the understanding of the atheist for them to be able to reject a belief in God. It is reasonable to assume that God would be the greatest thing. If God is not human, He must be different to humans. Humans are imperfect therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that God is therefore perfect. POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS Not everyone agrees that the claim is valid Just because someone has an understanding of an idea, eg what a witch is, it does not mean that they are half way to believing in them. Just because two things are not the same, it does not necessarily follow that they will be opposites. EXAMPLE Girls are the opposite to boys – girls are mortal, however this does not make boys immortal

MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT CANNOT DEFINE INTO EXISTENCE THE WEAKNESSES OF ANSELM’S ARGUMENT NOT COHERENT MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT CANNOT DEFINE INTO EXISTENCE IS GOD PERFECT? EXPLANATION How can God be omniscient, he cannot know future choices? What about free will? How can something be omnipotent and omniscient? An omnipotent being could create a creature who had a secret unknown to anyone else, yet an omniscient being must know every secret. Just because you can define something, it does not mean that it exists. A definition is not proof of existence, it merely explains to us what something would be like if it did exist. When we say that God is perfect and that part of this perfection is existence, we are merely saying that no non-existing being can be God. Not all believers define God as perfect in all aspects – some say that what is perfect about him is that unlike humans, his intentions are always perfect, yet the outcomes are not. Some describe him as the ‘fellow sufferer who understands’ POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS God does know our future choices but does not compell us to do a certain thing – just because He knows what is going to happen, we still make the decision ourselves Aquinas’ response to the Paradox of the Stone – omnipotence is limited to that which is logically possible and a stone so heavy that God can’t lift it is logically impossible. Even if God is not perfect, it is still reasonable to assume that nothing else is better than Him.

PREDICATES Unicorns Cadbury’s Caramel Pencil River God Horn Caramel filling Lead/ graphite filling Water Necessary existence (would not depend on anything else to exist and therefore must exist) Because God has the inseparable predicate of necessary existence, Anselm argued that God must exist.

KANT’S FIRST CRITICISM OF ANSELM Just because we cannot separate a subject from it’s predicate it does not mean that it exists. All this tells us is what it would be like if it did exist. EXAMPLE: If unicorns existed, they would have horns If God existed, his existence would be necessary, ie not dependent on anything else

KANT’S SECOND CRITICISM OF ANSLEM

KANT’S CRITICISMS Kant 1 Kant 2 Existence is not a true predicate because it does not tell us any information about the subject. Kant used the example of ‘thalers’ (coins used in his day) to say that round, gold, rusted were all predicates because they added to our understanding, but existence did not. Just because we cannot separate a subject from it’s predicate it does not mean that it automatically exists.

WHY DOES A HAVE TO COME BEFORE B? Just because a subject has a predicate it does not mean they both exist Existence is not a real predicate because it does not describe the subject Because the second criticism talks about existence not being a real predicate. If you say this first then it makes no sense to start talking about it being an inseparable predicate in Kant 1

DESCARTES 1 1, I exist 2, In my mind, I have the conept of the a perfect being 3, As an imperfect being, I could not have conjured up the concept of a perfect being 4, The concept of a perfect being must therefore have originated from the perfect being itself 5, A perfect being must exist in order to be perfect 6, Therefore, a perfect being exists DESCARTES 2 1, The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being 2, A supremely perfect being has all perfections 3, Existence is a perfection 4, A supremely perfect being has the perfection of existence 5, It is impossible to think of God as not existing 6, Therefore God exists

KEY IDEAS (INCLUDING ANY COUNTER ARGUMENTS) IN OPPOSITION OF ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT – ‘God is that which nothing greater can be conceived’ NAME KEY IDEAS (INCLUDING ANY COUNTER ARGUMENTS) KEY QUOTES Gaunilo You cannot define something into existence (just because you can define a perfect island, it does not mean that it exists in reality). A definition only tells us what something would be like if it were real, we need evidence to prove it does exist. Anselm said that he had missed a fundamental point, an island relies on other things for its existence (is contingent) whereas God does not rely on anything to exist (is necessary) Aquinas It is a ‘transitional error’ to move from a definition of God to the existence of God. Human intellect alone was too weak to prove the existence of God. Kant Just because you cannot separate a subject from its predicate, you can deny the existence of both together. For example, a unicorn must have a horn to be a unicorn (otherwise it is just a horse). This does not prove that unicorns exist, it only tells us what they would be like IF they did. The same can be said of God and the predicate necessary existence, this does prove that God exists, it only tells us what he would ‘necessarily exist’ (not rely on anything else) IF he did. The job of a predicate is to describe the subject, it is supposed to develop your understanding of it, eg having three sides is a true predicate of being a triangle because it helps us to understand what a triangle looks like. Existence does not give us any information about a subject and therefore cannot be counted as a true predicate. Existence is obviously not a real predicate Russell Existence is a term to indicate the instance of something in the spatio – temporal world, in other words, something that occupies a place in the world. A - All cows have tails B – All unicorns have horns These two statements are not the same because we have evidence that cows exist but none for unicorns. Russell was making the point that we need some other information about a thing or being in order to make accurate claims about its existence. Moore Existence is not a real predicate because it does not function in the same way as other predicates. A- Some tame tigers do not growl. B- Some tame tigers do not exist. We have learned nothing about the tigers in this statement so ‘exist’ is not a real predicate. Hume Necessary existence is an incoherent concept. ‘We cannot define something into existence – even if it has all the perfections we can imagine’. Hume Dawkins We should be suspicious of any line of reasoning which lacks any data from the real world to support it.

KEY IDEAS (INCLUDING ANY COUNTER ARGUMENTS) IN SUPPORT OF ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT – ‘God is that which nothing greater can be conceived’ NAME KEY IDEAS (INCLUDING ANY COUNTER ARGUMENTS) KEY QUOTES Descartes God is perfect, a predicate of being perfect is necessary existence In our minds we have a concept of a perfect being, as we are imperfect, we could not have conjured up the concept ourselves, it could only have come from the perfect being itself – therefore a perfect being must exist. Kant and Moore said that existence was not a true predicate Aquinas said that the definition of God as perfect is not shared by all believers Does not explain why an imperfect being cannot conceive of a perfect one ‘I think therefore I am’ – Descartes. This relates more to setting the scene for Descartes work, rather than his thoughts on the onotological argument specifically. Leibniz ‘Perfection – a simple quality which is positive and absolute, and expresses without limitation whatever it does’. Malcolm God’s existence is either impossible or necessary, he cannot exist contingently. Therefore God must have necessary existence. All this tells us is that if God did exist, he would have necessary existence. Plantinga Since it is possible to imagine any number of worlds where things would be different, eg a world in which Pavarotti chose to become a painter instead of a singer, there must be any number of possible world including our own. If God’s existence is necessary, he must exist in them all and have the characteristics of God in them all. This argument only succeeds in showing us that God is possible in all possible worlds, not that he is actual in all possible worlds. It is impossible to think of God as lacking any perfection and to possess all perfections and not to exist would be meaningless.

3 REASONS WHY THE ARGUMENT FAILS For a deductive argument to work the first premise has to be correct. Anselm’s first premise – ‘God is that which nothing greater can be conceived’ (God is perfect and a predicate of perfection is having necessary existence) 1 Not everyone agrees with Anselm’s definition of God 3 Existence is not a real predicate so the statement is not analytically true 2 Having a predicate is not proof of existence

ESSAY PLAN - IN OPPOSITION TO THE A necessary being cannot not exist ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT CONCLUSION If necessary existence is not a predicate of God then it is not analytically true that a perfect God exists and so the whole argument collapses INTRODUCTION Seriously flawed ARGUMENT AGAINST Anselm – Gaunilo had misunderstood, islands are contingent whereas God is necessary A necessary being cannot not exist COUNTER ARGUMENT Existence is not a real predicate because it doesn’t give us any information about the subject Moore – ‘Some tame tigers do not growl’ and ‘Some tame tigers do not exist’ – exist does not tell us anything new about the tigers IDEA Kant 1 – the predicate of necessary existence does not prove that God actually exists, it only tells us what he would be like if he did (unicorn example) Gaunilo – Defining something as ‘perfect’ does not automatically mean that it exists, you still need evidence

IN SUPPORT OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Liebniz Anti - Realism IN OPPOSITION TO THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Hume Russell

WHO SAID THIS… God is that which nothing greater can be conceived 1 God is that which nothing greater can be conceived 2 Transitional error 3 Existence is obviously not a real predicate 4 A necessary being cannot not exist 5 Some tame tigers do not growl, some tame tigers exist 6 Humans are imperfect, therefore they could not have thought of a perfect being by themselves 7 A perfect God that did not exist would be meaningless 8 The analogy of the perfect island 9 Necessary existence is an incoherent concept 10 We should be suspicious of arguments that ‘lack a single piece of data from the real world’

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT KEY IDEA Gaunilo Necessary and Contingent Kant 1 ACCORDING TO KANT, WHY DOES THE ARGUMENT COLLAPSE (BASED ON KANT 2)? Kant 2

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Across Who said that existence referred to occupying space in the world? 3. What of his own was Anselm hoping to develop? 6. What type of error did Aquinas say that it was to go from definition to existence 8. Who said that a perfect God that did not exist would be meaningless? 9. What type of argument is the ontological argument? 10. What did Kant say that the function of a predicate was? Down 2. What does the ontological argument lack (2 words) 4. Who said that an imperfect being could think up a perfect one? 5. What did Hume call necessary existence? 7. Who devised the analogy of the perfect island?