1. Explain the ontological argument for the existence of God.
Candidates may refer to the following but credit other ontological arguments:
Anselm: “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” must exist in reality and not only in mind or this being would lack ... and hence, not be “a being than ...” His second form - necessary existence, etc.
Descartes’ “supremely perfect being.” Existence as a perfection/attribute/characteristic. Triangle and valley/mt. examples.
Malcolm’s analysis, especially of Proslogion 3, ‘impossible or necessary.’ God as an Unlimited Being

2. Outline the challenges to the ontological argument with reference to Gaunilo and Kant. [AO1 20] Candidates could include some of the following, but other relevant responses should be credited.
The Ontological Argument is ‘a priori’ and attempts to prove God’s existence by using the meaning of the word ‘God’. It is deductive (conclusion follows from the premises) and analytic because the truth or falsity of the argument is determined by the meaning of the words used.
Critics argue that there is no clear agreement on what the word ‘God’ means or the definition could simply be wrong. However, whatever one believes, it still covers the notion that nothing can be thought to be greater than God.
A further criticism is the idea of the ‘greatest or more perfect being.’ is this meaningful and does ‘most loving’ have a maximum? Gaunilo’s challenges centres on the view that replacing the word ‘God’ with ‘greatest island’ produces true premises, but a false conclusion. The greatest island must possess all perfections, including existence. Therefore such an island must exist but in reality it does not. We can always think of a bigger or better island, but such an island cannot have an ‘intrinsic maximum.’
Kant argues that existence is not a real predicate because it does not tell us what an object is like. Moreover, the words ‘exist’ merely states that a concept has an actuality. It does not actually add anything to the concept. The real contains no more than the merely possible. He challenges the view that God is a necessary or ‘first order’ predicate as it only uses concepts and not realities. He claimed that God cannot be argued into existence and, therefore, existence cannot be a predicate. Thus, if you have a triangle, then you must have three angles, but if you do not have a triangle, then you do not have three angles. This is not a checklist, please remember to credit any valid alternatives.

3. Philosophy of Religion AO2 1 d, e and f evaluation questions

4. Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:
The extent to which ‘a priori’ arguments for God’s existence are persuasive.
The extent to which different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments for the existence of God.
The effectiveness of the ontological argument for God’s existence.
Whether the ontological argument is more persuasive than the cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence.
The effectiveness of the challenges to the ontological argument for God’s existence.
The extent to which objections to the ontological argument are persuasive.

5. Ontological arguments
Ontology is a branch of philosophy that explores the concept of existence. It comes from the Greek word ‘ontos’, meaning ‘being’. In philosophy, existence can refer to several different types of existence. Everyone in this classroom exists physically – we can be seen and heard, we exist empirically. Now consider maths. Numbers exist, but they don’t exist physically. I cannot go out and touch the number six – but this doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Now think about your emotions. We can be happy, sad, excited, shocked… Our emotions don’t exist in the same way as we exist, but they also don’t exist in the same way as numbers. Emotions can be felt, but not by others – they exist in an entirely different way.
Ontological arguments work from principles and definitions in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. They use logic to conclude God’s existence, rather than sensory experience. According to the ontological argument, almost everything exists contingently. We are contingent beings because we wouldn’t exist without our parents, oxygen, food, etc. Everything else in the universe exists contingently too; in other circumstances it would cease to exist. However, according to religious believers, God is necessary rather than contingent. God is not a ‘thing’; He has not come about because of anything; there was no time when God did not exist, and there is nothing that could happen that would cause God to cease to exist. God’s existence is different.

6. 1. Deductive Proofs
For this theme, we have been looking at deductive, a priori arguments. The inductive arguments we have looked at argue for the probability of God’s existence; deductive arguments hold that it is logically necessary for God to exist.
As these arguments are based on logic, they can also be categorised as a priori arguments. This means that unlike the arguments we have looked at so far, these arguments do not rely on our experiences, but favour logic.
How can we evaluate these points?

7. Philosophical Thinking
Can you think of any challenges to the ontological argument? Can you think of any arguments to support the ontological argument? These can be responses to the challenges?
Type of argument
Intended readership

8. Challenges to the Ontological Argument
Create a mind map or timeline of the challenges to the ontological argument – page 2 – 3 Use the PPP, video, textbook, booklet, WJEC booklet and the extract from Vardy to help you Mr millar Challenges to the ontological argument It is your responsibility to complete this – detailed and with ‘reasoning and evidence’

9. AO2 Challenges
Why did Kant reject the ontological argument? If not completed
Why did Hume reject the ontological argument?
Why did Aquinas reject the ontological argument?
Why did Davies reject the ontological argument?
Why did Russell reject the ontological argument?
Russell - Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E.g.
Men exist
Santa Claus is a man
Therefore Santa Claus exists

10. AO2 Challenges – Page references link to Vardy
Why did Gaunilo reject the ontological argument? 85
Why did Aquinas reject the ontological argument? 83-89
Why did Kant reject the ontological argument? 86-7
Why did Hume reject the ontological argument? 88
Why did Russell reject the ontological argument? 88-9

11. Success Criteria Include Gaunilo – Islands … Aquinas
Hume and Kant - that statements about God are synthetic and that existence is not a predicate
Russell - Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E.g.
Men exist
Santa Claus is a man
Therefore Santa Claus exists
Hick
Davis - such a being is “possible” but not actual

12. Gaunilo’s challenge – Vardy 85
Gaunilo was a contemporary of St Anselm, and was the first to object to Anselm’s idea that God exists by definition. Gaunilo was a Christian, but he believed that Anselm’s argument was not logical and therefore needed to be refuted. He wrote his objections under the title ‘On Behalf of the Fool’.
Think! Why do you think he called his work this?
Gaunilo claimed that the flaws in Anselm’s logic would become obvious if one went through the argument again, but replacing the idea of God with the idea of an island. He explained that we could imagine the most perfect Lost Island; we understand the implications of the term ‘the most perfect island’ and therefore this notion exists as a concept in our understanding (basically, we can imagine, and understand, a perfect island). Using Anselm’s logic, we might go on to say that for such an island to exist in our minds means that this is inferior to the same island existing in reality. If our island is truly the mostperfect, it cannot be inferior to any other island: it must exist in reality. But clearly, there is no such island in reality. We cannot bring something into existence just by defining it.
“When someone tells me there is such an island, I easily understand what is being said, for there is nothing difficult here. Suppose, however, he then goes on to say: you cannot doubt that this island, more excellent than all land, actually exists somewhere in reality…I would think he were joking; or if I accepted the argument, I do not know whom I would regard as the greater fool, me for accepting it or him for supposing that he had proved the existence of this island with any kind of certainty.”

13. Anselm’s reply to Gaunilo
Anselm was actually quite impressed with Gaunilo’s argument, and even included it in later versions of his book, along with his reply.
Anselm argued that, although Gaunilo was right in the case of an island, his objections didn’t work when applied to God, because an island has contingent existence, whereas God’s existence is necessary.
The ontological argument only works when applied to God, nothing else, because of God’s uniqueness and the way in which He exists. Of course this perfect island you can imagine doesn’t exist, because it is contingent – it relies on lots of other things for its existence. God doesn’t.

14. Aquinas’ challenge – Vardy 85
People have different definitions of God – not everyone agrees God is ‘That than which nothing greater can be known’. ‘Because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition God exists is not self evident to us.’ Summa Theologica Also, not everyone is convinced by the argument, had it been a very strong argument then everyone would find God’s existence to be self- evident, but it is not. God’s existence is synthetic and cannot be proven by analysing a concept.

15. Aquinas - The Ontological Argument fails!
Some things were self-evident and could be known a priori In order to do this we must be able to define subject and predicate
Therefore, man cannot define God a priori
Humans have limited intellect and are unable to understand or define the nature of God

16. Kant – what can you remember? Vardy 86-7
Many philosophers believe that Kant’s criticism of ontological arguments for the existence of God is fatal; it has demolished the arguments. Kant argued that ‘existence is not a predicate’; it is not a characteristic of something. Predicates of something describe what that thing is like; it might be blue, fuzzy, round, sharp or shiny. Predicates tell us something about the object that would help us identify it in some way. Existence, according to Kant, is not the same as a predicate, it doesn’t tell us anything about the object. When we say something ‘exists’, we are saying that there is an example of something with these characteristics in real life.
If we apply this to the ontological argument, then when we are thinking of Anselm’s ‘TTWNGCBC’ or Descartes’ ‘supremely perfect being’, we are thinking of a concept. Whether or not that concept is actualised is an issue, but not one that can be solved simply by adding ‘existence’ to the predicates we ascribe to the concept. We can predicate of a unicorn that it is like a horse and has a single horn in the middle of its head, but adding ‘exists’ to our description won’t make any different as to whether or not the concept is actualised so that we can go and find one. I cannot simply say ‘a unicorn is a horse-like creature with a horn that exists’, and one will appear as an example in real life.
Therefore, when we describe the concept of God, it is pointless to say that existence is a predicate, because it doesn’t actualise God. It doesn’t create a God that we can use as a real-life example, because existence is not a predicate; it’s not one of God’s characteristics.
Important point = Kant was not arguing against the existence of God but rather pointing out the flawed logic of ontological arguments.
It is possible to apply Anselm’s logic to Kant’s objection and say that God’s existence is necessary; other things only exist contingently. Therefore, necessary existence can be a predicate of God – but it can only be predicated of God. This isn’t a very strong defence however, because then the argument becomes circular: we have to accept that God

17. Hume – see Vardy 88
This argument is presented by Cleanthes in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Hume, or his character Cleanthes, puts the argument like this:
“I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.”
The argument in this passage, formalised, goes something like this:
(1) The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction. (2) If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable. (2) Everything can be conceived not to exist. Therefore: (3) Nothing can be proved to exist a priori.

18. To find out whether a statement can be proved a priori, we try to imagine that it is false. If we are able to imagine that it is false, then we may infer that it cannot be proved a priori; empirical investigation will be necessary in order to discover whether the statement is true or false. If we are unable imagine the statement being false, then we may infer that the statement is true. This is because conceivability is a guide to possibility. What is impossible involves a contradiction, and what involves a contradiction is inconceivable, so what is impossible is inconceivable.
To find out whether God is a necessary being, therefore, we must try to imagine that he does not exist. As we are able to do so, his non-existence is possible. No amount of abstract reasoning will be able to establish his existence, therefore, because only necessary truths can be proved a priori. The conceivability of God’s non-existence shows that no a priori proof of his existence is possible.

19. Russell – see Vardy 89
Existence is not a predicate –if it was then: E.g. Men exist Santa Claus is a man Therefore Santa Claus exists In your own words explain how this can be used to challenge the ontological argument

20. John Hick
Rejects Malcolm’s argument that God’s existence must be necessary because it is not logical absurd. Hick claims that the ‘most that can be said is that if God exists, God exists necessarily.’ Hick’s argument is problem free – but the if stops is being a proof of God’s existence

21. AO2 Challenges – recap questions
Why did Gaunilo reject the ontological argument?
Why did Aquinas reject the ontological argument?
Why did Kant reject the ontological argument?
Why did Hume reject the ontological argument?
Why did Russell reject the ontological argument?

22. Strengths - 28
Can you think of any strengths of the ontological arguments?
Many religions accept Anselm’s definition of God
Deductive and a priori – logically persuasive – proof. If the definition of God is correct it works
Existence is a predicate – S. Davies, thalers
It is based on a convincing premise – it is better to exist in reality. If existence is a predicate of a Supremely Perfect Being then to deny the existence of a Supremely Perfect Being is contradictory
Demonstrates God’s existence
The challenges to the argument fail – responses to all the challenges
Reason is the only reliable source of knowledge – senses mistaken
Anselm’s argument supports those with faith

23. The extent to which ‘a priori’ arguments for God’s existence are persuasive
Read page 31 Highlight all the points that support a priori arguments Highlight all the points that support a posteriori arguments Underline any ‘evaluation’ words Add scholar’s/examples/analogies/arguments Use this information to write up an essay plan to the question on page 30

24. The extent to which different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments for the existence of God
Read Vardy ‘The Puzzle of God’ pages 91 to 94
Answer the questions on page 43
Read the sample answer on page 44
Complete the essay plan for this question on page 45

26. DIL Complete the comparison AO1 plans Complete page 24
Complete the AO2 essay plans on pages 33, 34 and 38 in booklet 3

27. A deductive argument – an argument in which, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A priori – prior to experience. Predicate – something that adds to our concept of the subject Necessary being – a being whose non-existence is logically impossible. This is different from the cosmological usage which refers to factual necessity Contingent being – a being that need not be, that could have been different, something that has dependency. Analytic – a statement in which the predicate is contained in the subject. Synthetic – a statement in which the predicate is not contained in the subject. Essence - the essential nature of something. Ontological - relating to the nature of being. Existential - relating to existence

28. ‘The challenges to the ontological argument are convincing
‘The challenges to the ontological argument are convincing.’ Evaluate this view
Challenges are not convincing:
Strengths of a priori and deductive arguments - logical, a priori argument which makes sense if one accepts the premises. God’s existence is self evident to believers
Anselm’s response to Gaunilo
General support - most theists would accept Anselm’s definition
S. Davis’ response to Kant – existence is a predicate
Senses can be mistaken
Modern versions
Challenges are convincing:
Challenges to a priori/deductive arguments
Gaunilo's island;
Aquinas' claim that God's existence is not self-evident and therefore needs demonstrating;
Kant's various criticisms; unsound argument as premises may not be true etc.
Hume’s criticism – can’t prove anything a priori

29. 'The challenges to the ontological argument are ineffective
'The challenges to the ontological argument are ineffective.' Evaluate this view. [AO2 30]
Candidates could include some of the following, but other relevant responses should be credited. The ontological argument is regarded as effective because it is an ‘a priori’ argument and a deductive proof with logically inescapable conclusion. This is attractive to believers of theistic religions, because, for them, the existence of God is self-evident. Modern versions of the argument still arise, showing the reasonableness of the ontological argument and worth pursuing, principally because, they claim, it has a logically inescapable conclusion. Those who disregard it cite the effectiveness of counter-claims e.g. Gaunilo’s ‘greatest island.’
Moreover, there is a powerful and obvious conclusion that you cannot define something into existence. Critics also argue that the argument defines God into existence. The argument goes on to suggest that we cannot explain the concept of God properly without coming to the conclusion that he exists. Anselm’s response was that God is unique and has necessary existence. Kant disagreed, saying that no contradiction arises if both subject and predicate are rejected. Kant denies existence as a real predicate-a concept is not made greater or more perfect by claiming that it is.
In addition, the premises of the ontological argument may not be true as they stem from medieval times and do not take account of modern science.
Alternatively, we simply say that the existence of God is a ‘special case’.
Overall, candidates should engage with the debate and come to a substantiated evaluation regarding the issue raised.

30. ‘The success of arguments for the existence of God depend entirely on ideas about the nature of God.’
Deductive arguments are all about starting with a concept or idea of God and deducing from there that God MUST exist. They all start with a slightly different idea of God? Well those are the "different religious views on the nature of God" that the question asks for ANSELM - PROSLOGION 2 - the greatest possible being that can be imagined. must exist or wouldn't be as great as something that did ANSELM -PROSLOGION 3 - God must be a necessary being or he wouldn't be as great as something that wa DESCARTES - - God is a supremely perfect being and existence is a predicate (essential quality) of perfection. MALCOLM - God is either necessary or impossible - and he's not impossible....so.... So, how do we start with discussing the 'extent' bit of the question? We can say: THEY ALL DIFFER - in emphasising different aspects of God (perfection, greatness, necessity etc.) - this matters - Malcolm thinks his emphasis on necessity means his version works better and gets round some of the issues raised by Kant THEY ARE ALL THE SAME : PERSUASIVE If the premises are true, then the conclusion is NECESSARILY, BY DEFINITION true – it MUST BE TRUE NOT SO PERSUASIVE The truths established could be ‘TAUTOLOGICAL’(we’re just saying the same thing in a different way) Or just down to ‘linguistic trickery’ (playing with words) -Do these arguments ‘go beyond’ the words / concepts to anything real? This is not a conventionally ‘scientific’ approach – it’s more logical and mathematical and therefore lacks intuitive appeal / common sense Can appear esoteric (only for the initiated) or to be linguistic trickery Aquinas disapproves (think about what God does - not what he is)