the ontological argument was put forward by Anselm
attempts to demonstrate he existence of God, through analysing the definition of God
it is analytical aswell as, an a priori this is because, it does not depend on evidence and the conclusion is contained in the premise
the term 'ontological' derives from the Greek words 'ontos' meaning being and 'logos' meaning knowledge
anselm laid out his argument in his book 'Proslogian', an open letter addressed to the fool of psalms 14:1
note that anselm did not set out to prove the existence of God to non believers but merely to demonstrate the logical necessity for Gods existence
ontology is the study if the being or existence, which gives its name to this argument, as it uses the definition of God, which anselm puts as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
thus argument is deductive so the conclusion cannot be logically opposed, in contrast to an argument that uses the synthetic evidence such as: teleological and cosmological arguments
1 of 3
Ontological : first argument
Written in Proslogian chapter 2
Anslem after the definition goes on to say that things can either exist in de re (reality) or de dicto (mind)
Anselm says that God greatest possible being which can be thought of
God may exist either in de re alone or in de dicto aswell
Anselm argues that something that exists in both mind and in reality is greater than something that just exists in the mind alone ( e.g. Money you can imagine (mind) having £1000, but actually having £1000 (reality) is better than just imagining it)
you can't only think of God in the mind because, that would mean there is something greater than God
Therefore it is impossible, so in order to be the greatest conceivable being, the greatest conceivable being must exist in the mind and in reality A03
Gaunilo who was a monk and a member of a religious brotherhood (who came before Anselm) disputed Anselm's first argument. if a friend told Gaunilo about a perfect lost island, Gaunilo could imagine it. If the friend went on to say if it was real rather than just Gaunilos imagination, then, according to Anselm's arguent, that island must exist. (E.g. Just because, you can think of flying pigs, doesn't means it's true)
Gaunilo uses an analogy if a perfect island to demonstrate that just because you can conceive something, it doesn't make it exist, this is ‘absurd’. Facts are needed. The fool is right to demand proof that God is in fact, and not just by definition, the greatest conceivable being.
Anselm would argue that, his argument doesn’t apply to islands because islands are contingent whereas God is necessary , something which cannot be conceived as not existing is greater than something than can
Anselms response would be that God is a 'special case', which is a weak response
2 of 3
A03 for 1st ontological argument
Gaunilo who was a monk and a member of a religious brotherhood (who came before Anselm) disputed Anselm's first argument. if a friend told Gaunilo about a perfect lost island, Gaunilo could imagine it.
If the friend went on to say if it was real rather than just Gaunilos imagination, then, according to Anselm's arguent, that island must exist. (E.g. Just because, you can think of flying pigs, doesn't means it's true)
Gaunilo uses an analogy if a perfect island to demonstrate that just because you can conceive something, it doesn't make it exist, this is ‘absurd’. Facts are needed. The fool is right to demand proof that God is in fact, and not just by definition, the greatest conceivable being.
Anselm would argue that, his argument doesn’t apply to islands because islands are contingent whereas God is necessary , something which cannot be conceived as not existing is greater than something than can
Also, argue that God is a 'special case', which is a weak respons
Malcolm - criticises Anselm’s idea that we can prove God’s existence from analysing his nature. God cannot be contingent because this would involve a cause to bring him in or out of existence, which would limit him, and God is by definition limitless. So God must be impossible or necessary. Only impossible if he is absurd or contradictorym, which he isn’t, so he must be necessary.
Comments
No comments have yet been made