OA: Faith and Reason What difference does the argument make - to believers - to non-believers Organise the statements according to which side they provide support for Which are the more convincing ones? How do you respond to the opposite arguments?

OA Quiz Time

The 2 parts of Anselm’s OA are.. God as TTWNGCBC is less great than God as TTWNGCBC and who exists, so by reductio, first definition of God is impossible, so God exists The Fool does not recognise that the God that he conceives of, must exist God as TTWNGCBC must exist since it is impossible to conceive of God as not existing. God as TTWNGCBC is impossible to conceive of, therefore God cannot exist in our minds, but only in reality God is TTWNGCBC because he has all perfections and existence is a perfection, so he must exist

Gaunilo’s challenge was that… The concept of a perfect being is incoherent If God as a perfect being exists, therefore an island as a perfect island must exist If God by definition exists, then other things by definition exist eg perfect islands You cannot go from a definition to a claim of existence There is no reason to think that the things we conceive of must, a priori, exist

Descartes examples of a mountain /valley was meant to show that… you can reject both and say that they, like God, don’t exist you can’t have the concept of God without assuming his existence If you assume one of God’s qualities eg omnipotence, you have to assume the others eg omniscience, necessary existence Necessary existence is part of the definition of God, like the valley is part of the definition of a mountain What goes up must come down

Hume thought that.. You cannot derive a claim about existence from a definition Descartes was correct in rejecting triangles with their three sides You cannot overcome the analytic/synthetic distinction God’s existence could be proved by a priori thinking “God exists” is not analytic because it can be contradicted

Kant’s example to prove that existence was not a predicate was.. An imaginary dog is no different from a dead dog 100 real thalers in your pocket is no different from 100 possible thalers in your mind You can’t take away existence from something and say it lacks something Triangles can be rejected together with their three sides The grammatical point that “is” in a sentence does not add anything to the subject being described

Russell argued that existence is not a predicate, so the OA fails, because.. Subject-predicate sentences in fact do not contain a subject, so x>y argument fails Empty terms/ negative existentials are in fact descriptions which may be shown as true or false, so OA depends on empirical evidence The name “God” really just stands for a description, so the OA is not claiming anything about any subject The name “God” just stands for a description, so the OA is meaningless The OA is convincing for its rationality, as Russell realised when returning from the tobacco shop.

Frege’s point was that… Descriptions such as the present King of France does not exist are meaningless, so God is too Existence applies to objects in the same way as numbers apply to concepts A horse cannot be counted Existence applies to the concept as a whole, as a first order predicate Existence is simply the assertion that there is one numerical instantiation of the concept

Malcolm tries to prove that God necessarily exists because if he doesn’t nothing could make him exist God necessarily exists because it is part of the concept of God that he has necessary existence God necessarily exists because either his existence is necessary or impossible, but it is not impossible God necessarily exists because his non-existence is incoherent God necessarily exists because by definition God is the maximal existent being

Plantinga’s proof can be challenged because… No atheist will accept that the idea of a God is even possible It is incoherent to assume the presence of a necessary being You can’t compare a God who is greater because he exists with one that doesn’t – as there is nothing to compare Analytic synthetic distinction must be maintained You can reject the idea of a possible God and his necessary existence like rejecting a triangle and its three sides

Exam Questions