Ontological

Ontological Argument:

Statements and Evidence:Posteriori:• Uses:

• Past experiences.• Your senses.

• Strengths:• Accessible (based on things you

know).• Easy to interpret.• Can’t deny (as you have seen it).

• Weaknesses:• Subjective (interpretation).• Requires leap of faith.

Priori:• Uses:

• Definitions.• Facts.

• Strengths:• If definition is correct then

claim is unarguable.• Weaknesses:

• Can not define something's (like God and the after life).

• May have the wrong definition.

Statements:• Statements:

• Sentences used by philosophers to explain evidence.

• Also know as premises.• Analytical:

• The predicate (or description) is included in the subject.

• Examples:• ‘Spinsters are unmarried and

female.’• ‘Triangles have three sides and

three angles.’• ‘God exists.’

• Synthetic:• The predicate is not included in

the subject.• Examples:• ‘Spinsters are happy.’• ‘Triangle are the most common

shape used in geometry.’• ‘God exists’.

Anselm Form 1:Type of argument:• Claims God is real and aims to prove this

using a priori evidence. • Convinced ‘exists’ is a predicate of God, so

used definitions.• Have a deductive argument, meaning that if

the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

• Claims his premises are analytical in nature (contain predicates) throughout his book.

• For example – a triangle has three sides – triangle, three sided.

• Analytical statements prove God as they leave no other alternative.

Form 1:• Must have a definition of ‘X’

before we can assert or deny it.• Used ‘a being to which nothing

greater can be conceived’ as the definition of God.

• If you accept the definition, you must accept that God is real.

• Even the suggestion that there is no God (atheism) requires the concept of God (admit the definition is correct)

• God has to exist in reality for him not to be limited.

• It is impossible to conceive of anything other than God, because the greatest being imaginable will always fit that definition of God.

• Therefore, ‘existence’ must be a predicate of God.

• Therefore, God is real.

Quotes:• ‘The fool has said in his heart there is

no God’ – Doesn’t make sense to deny a definition.

• ‘Nonsensical language’ – In an attempt to prove ‘nothing’, atheists admit that God is the greatest while limiting him to non-existence.

• ‘Reduction ad absurdum’ – absurd to refuse God is real.

Summary:• Must have a definition of

something before proving/disproving it.

• Therefore, need a definition of God which is the ‘greatest being’.

• To be the greatest, he can not be limited.

• Non-existence is a big limitation.

• Therefore, God exists.

For

Gaunilo:Argument:• God cannot be proven to exist a priori.• Accuses Anselm of ‘bringing’ things into

existence.• Uses analogy of the greatest island to show that

it can exist only in the mind not in reality.• Since the island is the greatest in every way in

the mind, using Anslem’s logic it would exist in reality as he states that existence is a predicate of greatness.

• Since part of greatness is existence, the worst island that exists wold be better than the best one that doesn’t.

• But we know in our logic the island does not exist, otherwise anything could exist.

• Therefore, existence is not a predicate of greatest and greatest is not a predicate of God.

Quotes:• ‘On behalf of the fool’ – as the atheist.• ‘An object can hardly or never be conceived

according to the world alone’ – any object you try to define can never be proven by word’s alone – you need experience.

Summary:• If the word greatest equals

existence, then it means existence for any object.

• We know that the island people think of as greatest does not exist.

• That is because greatest does not equal existence.

• Existence does not help understanding so is not a predicate.

Link to Anslem:• Anslem claims existence

is a predicate because the greatest being can not be limited be non-existence.

• Gaunilo claims existence is not a predicate because greatness does not equal existence for everything so therefore does not equal it for anything.

Against

Anselm Form 2:Quotes:• ‘I do not seek to understand that I

mat believe but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe that unless I believed, I should not understand.’ - He did not write form one as an argument to prove God as he was a monk just expressing his belief.

• ‘Hence the being that which a greater is conceivable must be whatever should be attributed to the essence.’ – Therefor, what people call God can not be thought of as anything else, as it is a necessary being as we are contingent on it.

Argument:• Tried to prove why God cannot ‘cease to exist’.• Island can be the greatest possible island you

can think of.• However, they are to different examples, as

we cannot imagine an island that wouldn’t rely on something else for its existence as the island is not necessary and I therefore contingent.

• The island is contingent, while God is necessary.

• To compare God (a necessary) to the island (a contingent) is missing the point.

• In order to be the greatest possible being one should fit the definition of necessary and not rely on anything else for one’s existence.

• Basically adding ‘necessary’ as a predicate of God

• In order to be necessary you must not be contingent and therefore must be greatest being – God.

Summary:• Aim is to show how God can

not cease to exist.• Contingent and necessary,

making it a priori argument.• Still uses the definition of God

– ‘a being to which nothing greater can be conceived.’

• Must be God as can’t think of another being of attribute it to.

For

Descartes:Discourse of Method:• ‘I think, therefore I am’ – the only way

you know you are in existence is your innate ability to think.

• Therefore, the existence of the self could be considered a known, logical fact.

• Once this is accepted, we can then seek knowledge of the wider universe.

• Knowledge following from our own existence we can then look for knowledge of God using thought.

• Existence is a predicate that is known and understood, is a predicate of you because you can think.

Argument:• Starts off with a definition of God – ‘supremely

perfect being’ – same definition as Anslem.• By definition, God must exist to be a being as

existence is a perfection.• A thing which did not exist would be by

definition not perfect, as the existing version is more complete.

• So anything perfect by definition must exist.

Aim:• To explain what a predicate is and therefore why

existence is one of Gods to disprove Gaunilo.• God remains a ‘special case’ as he is not contingent

and also because he can have no limitations such as non-existence – so must have existence as a predicate.

• ‘Supremely perfect being’ – possesses all perfection.• Existence is part of this perfection.• Example; a triangle has predicates of ‘three’, God has

‘exists’.• ‘It appears that existence can not be separated from

the essence of God, than the idea of a mountain from a valley, or the equally of its three angles to a triangle.’

Summary:• The way you work anything out is to think

it through.• If you think about the definition of God

which you are trying to either prove or disprove then the definition becomes of a perfect being.

• To be that definition they must have no limitations, including non-existence.

Main summary:• Aimed to show why

existence must be a predicate of God but not everything else, agreeing with Gaunilo.

• A predicate helps us to have knowledge of something.

• To fit the definition of God, it must have existence as a predicate.

• Therefore, existence is a predicate of God.

For

Kant:Critic against Anslem:• Stating the ‘God does not exist’ is not a

contradiction.• Unless we assume that an object exists in the

first place, we cannot make contradicting statements about it.

• If God is not real, and I never assumed he was, I am not contradiction myself.

• Anselm assumes he is real, giving him a definition that makes him real, calling the atheist a fool when they never assumed this.

• Can’t assume him into existence.

Critic against Descartes:• ‘Existence is not a predicate’.• Saying X exists does not ass real information

about X, so is not a predicate.• Because by talking about X in the first place we

assume that X does indeed exist.

Why existence isn’t a predicate:• If you have a triangle it must have three sides, if

you do not have a triangle it doesn’t need three sides.

• If you believe in God then existence is believed to be a predicate, if you do not then it is not needed.

• Predicates help prove an item, existence does not. It is a quality and does not change the value.

• Example: 100 thalers (German coin) imagine 100 in your pocket, bringing it into existence does not make it 101.

• Therefore, the predicate must change concept of items.

• Did not change value if it exists. Predicate must be a predicate or value.

Quotes:• ‘a 100 thalers does not contain the least coin

more than 100 possible thalers’ – existence does not change the value of something – an existing God is no more great than a non-existent one.

Summary:• Can’t contradict yourself as Anslem said if you never said God was

real in the first place.• ’Existence is not a predicate’ – can’t have subjective predicates – God

is real/not real.• A predicate is something that changes your understanding of a

concept, existence does not do that.

Against

Russell:

Argument:• Existence adds nothing to our knowledge

of God.• Certain predicates tell you about an object

or adds to your knowledge.• Existence adds nothing to concept of an

object – triangle needs ‘three’, not existence.

• In order to understand the concept, you would not try to understand the concept without using predicates that help imagine them.

• Just because something had a definition, does not mean it exists – predicate tells information, not exists.

• Non-existent beings have predicates, not proving God.

Summary:• Non-existent beings have

predicates too, so God having predicates does not prove his existence.

Quotes:• ‘Cows and unicorns’ –

know what they are regardless of if they are real.

Plantinga:Argument:• There is a ‘possible world’ in which

there exists a being of maximal greatness (it must exist) and maximal excellence (omniscient, omnipotent ect.)

• If a maximally great and maximally excellent being exists in one possible world then it must exist in all possible worlds.

• Or else it would not be maximally great and excellent.

• Our world is a possible world.• Therefore a maximally great and

maximally excellent being must exist in our world too

• Therefore, God exists.

Summary:• Version of the OA as he uses definition.• An a priori argument as he uses

definitions and logic to prove God, not past experiences.

• Differs from Descartes and Anselm as he uses different definitions of God and it concentrates on mind and reality, not just reality.

For

Gaskins:Argument:• The creation of the world is the most

supreme achievement conceivable.• The value of an achievement is

measured by its intrinsic quality and the ability of the creator (judge quality of God by quality of world) and quality of world by creator (best creator = easy)

• The greater the limitation of the creator, the more impressive the achievement (something with limitations has a bigger achievement)

• The greatest possible limitation of a creator would be non-existence.

• Therefore, a world created by a non-existence creator would be greater than one created by an existent creator.

• An existing God is therefore not the greatest conceivable being since an even greater being would be one which does not exist.

• Therefore, God does not exist.

Summary:• The OA says that the existences of the

world equals a necessary being.• Gaskin states you judge greatness on

achievement/what’s been made.• You base achievement on the creator (7

year old, year 7, A-Level student) and how able they are.

• The more limited the person, the greatest the achievement (7 year old is better than A-Level student)

• Biggest limitation you can have is none existence.

• Therefore, the greatest being does not exist.

Summary:Anselm form 2:• We need a being to which we take our

existence from, the only possible being is a necessary and fits the definition of God.

• Priori – uses definition of contingent and necessary.

• Predicates – ‘necessary’ and ‘exist’ for God.

• Definition – ‘a being to which nothing greater can be conceived’• ’Necessary’• ‘Contingent’• ‘Greatest’

Descartes:• The word existence is part of the

definition of perfection, as a necessary must be perfect it must be God.

Kant:• Existence adds nothing to the value of

anything and is therefore not a predicate – can’t contradict yourself.

• Priori – can not define something into existence.

• Predicate – helps us gain knowledge of something, existence doesn’t so therefore isn’t a predicate.

Russell:• Lots of things with definitions that

are not in existence (unicorns)

Plantinga:• If God is real, then he exists in all

possible worlds. This is a possible world so he exists.

Gaskin:• The greatest achievements are by

those who do not exist.• Priori – can change the definition of

something which he did to God.• Definition – doesn’t have to be the

greatest as someone may think of the greatest not existing.

• Predicate – possible to say non-existence is a predicate.

Gaunilo:• Can not bring items into existence based

purely on definition randomly.• Priori – can bring anything into existence

(island) ‘An object can hardly or never be conceived according to the world alone’

• Predicate – disagrees that existence is not a predicate of greatest for it would have to be for everything and it isn’t.

Anselm form 1:• Argues God must exist both in mind and in

reality for him to fit the definition.• Priori – uses existence as a predicate of God.• Predicates – ‘exist’ for God.• Definition – ’a being to which nothing

greater can be conceived.’