THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT A BASIC INTRODUCTION THIS MUST

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. A BASIC INTRODUCTION. THIS MUST BE USED AS A STARTING POINT : OTHER SHEETS, TEXT BOOK AND INFORMATION WILL BE NEEDED TO HAVE THE FULL PICTURE .

STARTING POINTS. • Comes from Ontos : Being. • Is a priori : relies on definition of a word. • Is therefore, deductive and analytic. • The conclusion flows logically from the premises. (Does this make the conclusion right ? ) • A predicate / perfection / quality / characteristic / attribute tells us something about the subject. • In the argument, Anselm says that the predicate is contained in the subject. • So, God’s existence can be shown to be selfevident by analysing the word “God. ”

CONTINUED. • By analysing the word “God” it will be obvious, says Anselm, that God exists. • A bachelor is an unmarried male : • Subject=bachelor • Predicate=male, unmarried. • • • Anselm says : “God exists” : Subject=God Predicate=Exists. 1. What do you think of the above analysis of “God exists ? ” • 2. List 3 other a priori/analytic statements i. e. where the truth/falsity is known by analysing the statement.

DEFINITION OF GOD. • As the argument relies on analysing a definition, clearly the definition of God is vital : • “A BEING THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE CONCEIVED. ”

The Fool. • Psalm 14 NIV • 1 “The fool says in his heart, "There is no God. " They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. ” • Anselm says that even the fool has the concept of God in their mind, in order to reject God.

FROM GOD’S DEFINITION… • Greater=perfect • Conceived=thought of • Existence is a perfection you can have or lack • Perfection=having all perfections/predicates/ qualities etc. • So, to be “a Being than. . ” God must have the perfection of existence or else he would not be “a Being. . ” • WHY ? ? Explain your answer.

THIS IS WHY FOLKS… • It is surely better to exist in reality than in mind alone. • So, if God only had existence in the mind, then there could be another being who had existence in reality who would then be greater/more perfect than God. • But, this cannot be true, as God is “a Being than. . ” • So, God exists.

GAUNILO • He criticised this first form, mainly because the first form has existence as a predicate. • Anselm’s reply was that God is “a special case” and the argument applies only to necessary beings and not to contingent things like islands. • Anselm wrote a second form of the ontological argument.

ANSELM’S 2 ND FORM. • Here, existence is not treated as a predicate. • Looks at 2 modes of existence : contingent (could not have been) and necessary( could not be. ) • Basic form : greater/more perfect to have necessary existence as opposed to contingent existence. Why ? • Contingent existence relies on another to bring it into existence.

2 nd form (Cont. ) • This being is therefore limited. This being cannot then be God as God is “a Being than. . ” • If God were contingent/limited, then we could conceive of another being who has the predicate/property of necessary existence and this being would then be greater/more perfect than God, as it is more perfect to have the perfection of necessary existence. • So, … nearly there…. !

GOD EXISTS !!! • God’s existence must be necessary in order for God to match up to the definition that Anselm has given him. • So, by analysing the definition of the word God, Anselm has shown that God exists. • To deny God’s existence, once we have that definition of God is contradictory.

RESEARCH PIECE. • Use at least two texts. • Write an account of Anselm’s ontological argument. You must separate out his two forms. • Using the WJEC Level descriptors, swop your answer with someone else. Mark each other’s work.