Theme 1 Philosophy D,E,F

a priori arguments reach conclusion by considering definitions, ideas and meanings rather than evidence 

• Proslogion 2
• Definition of God: ‘a being than which nothing greater can be conceived’

• Premise 1: it is possible to exist both in the mind and /or in reality 

• Premise 2: it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone 

• Conclusion: If God is as we have defined, then God must exist both in the mind and in reality 

Proslogion 3

• Contingent beings: their existence is dependent on other things

• Necessary beings: they cannot be thought of not existing, God

• Premise 1: Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence

• Premise 2: it is possible to think of a being that has necessary existence (a being that must exist)

• Premise 3: God’s existence can either be necessary or contingent 

• Conclusion: Given that God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, God’s existence is necessary

• Says that just as one can have a clear idea of numbers, one can have a clear idea of God 

• Anselm’s definition of God used a negative; Descartes begins with a positive: ‘a supremely perfect being’

• Classical theism discusses attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience and love in relation to God - Descartes includes existence 

• Existence is one of the many perfections or attributes of God

• existence goes with God just as angles go with a triangle 

• existence belongs with God just as valleys belong with mountains 

• Is in favour of the ontological argument, though he rejects Anselm’s Proslogion 2 as well as Descartes’ view of existence as a perfection

• He sides with Gaunilo and Kant against them: you can’t just add existence to an object’s list of qualities and then declare that object to exist

•He believes, with Anselm in Proslogion 3, that necessary existence follows from the notion of that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived 

•This is because it is absurd to believe in a that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought that does not exist 

• This greatest possible being which has necessary existence can be described as unlimited being, a being that has no limits

• If God was limited in any way, then God would not be that-than-which-nothing-greater-can be-conceived and therefore not be worthy of worship

• A contemporary of Anselm, was a monk in France 

• He entitled his reply to Anselm, ‘On behalf of the fool’, a reference to Anselm’s view that a fool who does not believe in God could be refuted 

• He first says that Anselm’s definition of God cannot be understood in the mind as it is unlike any other understanding we possess

• He tried to show how Anselm’s argument is absurd by substituting an island for God 

• Anselm has claimed that God must exist, as it is greater to exist than to not exist

• Gaunilo asks us to imagine the most excellent island, though it would have been if he had used ‘an island than which no greater island can be conceived 

• His main point is that just because you can think of a ‘most excellent island’, it would be a logical nonsense to conclude that it must exist

• His approach is known as ‘reductio ad absurdum’; this is an argument that highlights that absurdity of a conclusion when followed by seemingly sound premises

• Anselm responded to him, saying that the ontological argument applies only to God; an ‘island’ simply cannot be compared with ‘God’

• In Proslogion 3 Anselm has noted the difference between contingent and necessary existence; an island is contingent, dependent on the natural world

• Critics of Gaunilo have pointed out that his island contains no intrinsic maximum- that is, it can always be added to and improved 

• A non-contingent God has an intrinsic maximum; that is, perfection is a necessary part of God

• An 18th-century philosopher who criticised Decartes’ form of the ontological argument

• If Descartes says, ‘if there is a God’, then a hypothetical God exists- it is possible for ‘God’ to be a hypothetical necessity 

• however , to say that ‘God exists necessarily’ is not hypothetical; it is a judgement that needs proof 

• This is the same with angles within a triangle- they logically belong together; however, this fact does not prove that there are triangles

• Existence is not a predicate because it tells us nothing about the nature of an object

• In the statement ‘God exists’, the predicate exists tells one nothing about the character of God 

a defining characteristic or an attribute; for example in the statement 'God is omnipotent', the predicate tells us something about the character of God