THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

REALITY AND UNDERSTANDING ESSENTIAL IDEAS A PRIORI Proven by reason DEDUCTIVE Draws its conclusions from the premises within the argument itself. Only successful the first premise must be analytically true or universally accepted. Anselm’s is neither. OWN UNDERSTANDING Further his own understanding of God. The argument was meant for believers – Anselm could therefore use certain assumptions. PREMISES Premise 1: God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. Premise 2: It is better to exist in reality and in understanding than just reality. Premise 3: For God to be the greatest thing he must exist in reality and in understanding. Conclusion: God exists in reality. REALITY AND UNDERSTANDING God must exist in reality, otherwise an improvement could be made, ie bringing him into existence and this is impossible as God is perfect and therefore does not require any improvement. THE FOOL Atheists understand that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, they just don’t believe he actually exists. The fool is half way to believing in God. NECESSARY EXISTENCE Necessary existence – does not rely on anything else to exist, because of this it is impossible to stop a necessary being from existing, therefore a necessary being cannot not exist (Malcolm). Contingent existence – relies on something else to exist. DESCARTES Premise 1: In my head I have the idea of a perfect being Premise 2: As an imperfect being, I can not have conjured up the concept of a perfect being myself Premise 3: The concept of the perfect being must have come from the perfect being itself Premise 4: A perfect being must exist in order to be perfect. Conclusion: A perfect being exists. Problems – does not explain why an imperfect being could not have conjured up an image of a perfect one. ANTI REALISM Statements are not meant to be understood as being factually true. Non-believers find this worthless. Believers do think the statements are factually true. LANGUAGE GAMES True within the context of the particular language game. STRENGTHS Deductive - not reliant upon correct interpretation of evidence Common starting point. Logical (Liebniz). WEAKNESSES Not coherent. Mutually inconsistent. Cannot define something into existence (Kant, Gaunilo, Aquinas, Russell, Dawkins and Hume). Existence is not a real predicate (Kant and Moore). Not everyone agrees with Anselm and Descartes’ definition of God as perfect.

ESSENTIAL IDEAS – QUICK QUESTIONS A PRIORI Proven by reason DEDUCTIVE Draws its conclusions from the premises within the argument itself. Only successful the first premise must be analytically true or universally accepted. Anselm’s is neither. OWN UNDERSTANDING Further his own understanding of God. The argument was meant for believers – Anselm could therefore use certain assumptions. What is the difference between a priori and a posteriori? What is the difference between a deductive and an inductive argument? What is wrong with Anselm’s first premise? What assumptions did Anselm base his argument on?

REALITY AND UNDERSTANDING ESSENTIAL IDEAS – QUICK QUESTIONS PREMISES Premise 1: God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. Premise 2: It is better to exist in reality and in understanding than just reality. Premise 3: For God to be the greatest thing he must exist in reality and in understanding. Conclusion: God exists in reality. REALITY AND UNDERSTANDING God must exist in reality, otherwise an improvement could be made, ie bringing him into existence and this is impossible as God is perfect and therefore does not require any improvement. THE FOOL Understands that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, they just don’ believe he actually exists. The fool is half way to believing in God. What does Anselm mean by the statement ‘God is that which nothing greater can be conceived’? Give your own example to illustrate the point that existing in reality is better than in understanding. Why does Anselm believe that the atheist is half way to believing in God?

ESSENTIAL IDEAS – QUICK QUESTIONS NECESSARY EXISTENCE Necessary existence – does not rely on anything else to exist, because of this it is impossible to stop a necessary being from existing, therefore a necessary being cannot not exist (Malcolm). Contingent existence – relies on something else to exist. DESCARTES Premise 1: In my head I have the idea of a perfect being Premise 2: As an imperfect being, I can not have conjured up the concept of a perfect being myself Premise 3: The concept of the perfect being must have come from the perfect being itself Premise 4: A perfect being must exist in order to be perfect. Conclusion: A perfect being exists. Problems – does not explain why an imperfect being could not have conjured up an image of a perfect one. ANTI REALISM Statements are meant to be understood as being factually true. Non-believers find this worthless. Believers do think the statements are factually true. LANGUAGE GAMES True within the context of the particular language game. Explain Malcolm’s point Explain, in your own words why neither side of the debate likes the anti-realist approach to the ontological argument.

ESSENTIAL IDEAS – QUICK QUESTIONS STRENGTHS Deductive - not reliant upon correct interpretation of evidence Common starting point. Logical (Liebniz). How does a deductive argument prove something if it doesn’t use evidence? What is the common starting point? Why do some people believe it is logical? Explain Liebniz’s point.

ESSENTIAL IDEAS – QUICK QUESTIONS WEAKNESSES Not coherent. Mutually inconsistent. Cannot define something into existence (Kant, Gaunilo, Aquinas, Russell, Dawkins and Hume). Existence is not a real predicate (Kant and Moore). Not everyone agrees with Anselm and Descartes’ definition of God as perfect. What is not coherent about the ontological argument and how do some people believe this can be overcome? What is mutually inconsistent about the argument and how do some people believe this can be overcome? Explain the criticism of not being able to define something into existence. Include Kant’s and Gaunilo’s examples.

ESSENTIAL IDEAS – QUICK QUESTIONS WEAKNESSES Not coherent. Mutually inconsistent. Cannot define something into existence (Kant, Gaunilo, Aquinas, Russell, Dawkins and Hume). Existence is not a real predicate (Kant and Moore). Not everyone agrees with Anselm and Descartes’ definition of God as perfect. Explain the function of a predicate and give an example. Why did Kant think that existence was not a real predicate and what example did Moore give to support this idea? What other ideas are there about the nature of God? (if he is not perfect then what is he?)