Ontological Arguments

Eleventh century archbishop of Canterbury - Anselm

Faith came first - 'for I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but i believe in order to understand'

References the psalm that starts 'truly there is a god, although the fool said in his heart,'there is no god''  - two positions in reference to existence of God acceptance of denial - Anslem's fool = self delusion in order to live alife of injustice and corruption

prosolgion 2 - god as 'a being that which nothing greater can be conseived'

premise 1 - beings exist in both the mind and in reality

premise 2 - god is the greatest possible being that can be thought of

conclusion - in order to be the greatest thing tha can eb thoguht of, God must exist in both the mind and in reality

Example of painter and a painting - painting exists within the mind of the painter before it is real

'God cannot be conceived not exist' - Proslogion

For God to be the greatest possible being then the next logical step is to conclude that God has necessary existence

It is possible to think of being that exists (has the property of existence). It is also possible to think of something thatq does not. The one that does exist is greater than the one that does not.

God, if he exists, is either a being which cannot be thought of not existing or he is a being which can be thought of. And if he is something that than which nothing greater can be conceived then God's existence but be necessary

God was the most perfect being - a being that possessed all perfections - God possesses the best of all possible atrributes - for instance all powerful, all loving, all knowing. - possesses all attributes he could possibly possess and in their most perfect form

Triangle - a trinagle has to have 3 sides and interior angles that add up to 180 - the shape does not necessarily exist in any external reality but those are necessary criteria for a triangle to be a triangle - the attribute of existence is a necessary part of the definition of what God is.

Mountains and valleys - one cannot think of a mountain without thinking of the corresponding valley - for wherever there is one there is always by definition the other - ' i cannot concieve God without existence'

The Philospgical review

Malcolm rejects both Anselm and Descartes- argress with Gaunilo and Kant

To state that something exists either because it is greater to exist in reality or because it is more perfect - cannot add the concept of a existence to a list of qualities that something has and thenc laim that it exists - 'the doctrine that existence is perfection is remarkably queer'

Does argree that because God is the greatest possible being that can be thought of then his existence would be necessary

God should be described as an unlimited being - a being that has no limits- possessess all perfections because he is unlimited and therefore worthy of worship - if there were limits to his power than he would not fit our understanding of God

Argument also known as reductio ad adsurdum

There must be a greatest and most perfect island - an island more excellent than every other island - you can imagine this island - therefore it must exist - as if it didn't it wouldn't be as great as an island thart

the idea of something that can be thought of as existing sepearetly outside of our minds just because it is the greatest thing we can think of is a logical nonsense -

the idea that only God is necessary and is the ground source of it's own being - Gaunilio's island is a contingent object that possesses no instrinsic macimum - God's perfection is necessary

Criticises Descartes ontological argument

Existance cannot be a predictate - does not describe naything about the nature of an object

God as all loving can be  a predicate as it is telling us about God's nature

God's existence tells us nothing about his nature

Describing something (eg my car is grey) is a predicate or attribute - saying that something exits says nothing about it's nature

Kant used the example of 100 Thalers (curreny used in prussia) - saying it exists changes nothing to our already existing perception of it and therefore it is a not a real predicate