1. Team RS Revision 2018 Ontological Arguments for God’s Existence Arguments based on reason

2. The Ontological Argument: St. Anselm’s First Argument
The Ontological Argument is an a priori argument (independent of experience). Some people are a priori arguments are more persuasive as they rely on deductive logic. If the premises are true, that leads to certainty. Ontological means concerned with being. God’s existence here is “proved” by thinking logically about the idea of God. It says God exists is an analytic statement where something is true by definition (eg all bachelors are male) just like saying a square has four sides or a bachelor is an unmarried male. A non-existent God is a contradiction. Boethius: Everything we can think of was possible to be, possible not to be, not possible to be and not possible not to be. The latter is God.
Saint Anselm (the first Archbishop of Canterbury, 11th century) outlined his Ontological Argument in Proslogion (in the form of a prayer). He defined theology as faith seeking understanding. Understanding was a consequence of belief. We believe before we can understand. He has TWO Arguments:
Anselm’s First Argument: We need to understand words and God. Anselm refers to the Fool quotes who in Psalm 53 says “there is no God.” The fool is a fool because he understands God by definition but denies God. The fool contradicts himself. For, although a painter understands his painting in his mind butt his painting does not yet exist, God is different. Anselm defines God as “a Being greater than which none can be conceived” or thought. Everyone accepts this in their mind. For God to be God, and to avoid contradiction, God must exist in both reality and fact because it is greater to exist in reality than just in mind and God is a “Being greater than which none can be thought.” Reality is a good worth having. A real million pounds is a greater than an imaginary one. If God existed only in the mind, a greater being could be conceived who existed in reality and the mind and that Being would be God. God would not be God if God did not exist. If God did not exist, God would not be the greatest being we can conceive.

3. The Ontological Argument: St. Anselm 2 and Descartes
St. Anselm’s Second Argument: “Our Lord, Our God” is so truly real that God cannot even thought not be. It is not possible to think God does not exist. It is greater for such a being to be thought to be than not to be. Something is only greater than which none can be conceived if it exists. So, it is not possible to think God does not exist. If the mind could think of something better, the creature would be above the Judge. God therefore is a Necessary Being whilst we are contingent beings. We might not exist. We depend on other things for our existence. But God cannot be thought of not to be or not to exist. God is not inferior to anything. In Anselm’s day, people thought necessary beings included earth, sun, stars. But God is even more significant. Norman Malcom (up-dates Anselm) saying God’s existence is either Necessary or contradictory. He believes it is Necessary because God is a different kind of being.
Mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes: In “Meditations”: We are born with innate ideas including God. God is by definition perfect and contains all perfections including existence. If God does not exist, God would not be perfect. Existence is a defining predicate of God just as triangles have three sides or a mountain needs a valley. Defining predicates are things / characteristics/ qualities which things have to have to be themselves. God without existence is not God.

4. The Ontological Argument: Criticisms: Gaunilo, Kant
Gaunilo, a monk and contemporary of Anselm, wrote “On Behalf Of The Fool.” He did not question God’s existence but questioned the philosophical soundness of the argument. He said Anselm was engaging in wishful thinking. He permitted anything to be thought into existence. With this logic, we can imagine the perfect lost island exists. If this mythic perfect island did not exist, it would be a contradiction to call it the perfect island. The perfect island would not be perfect if it did not exist. Defining something as superlative does not make it exist. St Anselm’s 3rd Argument: Responded to Gaunilo. Islands are different from God as they do not have to exist and are contingent (eg tables in the universe) depending on sea and earth. God is supremely necessary and not contingent /dependent. John Hick said a perfect island does not make sense anyway.
Immanuel Kant: 1. There is no contradiction in rejecting a concept together with its defining predicates. We do not contradict the concept of the mermaid / triangle if we reject its existence. There is no contradiction in saying God does not exist. There is no contradiction in saying squares do not exist. Just because a mermaid is half fish, half woman does not mean the mermaid exists. 2. Existence is not a characteristic / predicate. A mermaid or 100 German thalers do not change because they exist. Existence adds nothing extra. It actualises but this is a different aspect/category. Our concept of a mermaid is identical whether it exists or not.
Thomas Aquinas: God’s nature unknown. It is not self-evident that God iss that which nothing greater can be thought. People do conceive of God not existing. Others have different ideas of God. The human mind cannot comprehend God. People do manage to imagine a world without God. Only know God through effects of world. Not self-evident.
Bertrand Russell: The King of France is bald is not necessarily true because we state it. We need evidence. Need external evidence / sense experience to show things exist. Making statements about God is only meaningful if there is an actual God.
John Cottingham: Like Anselm, maybe this argument useful for those with existing faith.
Can we define God like a square? We know of the human concept of a square but not God. “If you have grasped God, what you have grasped is not God.” (Augustine)
Can we move from definition to fact. Can we leap from what is said to what exists.

5. To what extent does St. Anselm’s ontological argument prove the necessary existence of God. (Define ontological argument. Go straight into Anselm’s two ontological arguments and explain how this proves the necessary existence of God. Back this up with Descartes. Use Gaunilo and Kant to show this argument does not prove the necessary existence of God. Outline flaws. Conclude).
We cannot derive the existence of God from his definition. Discuss. (Explain the idea of the question being the ontological argument. Say we can derive the existence of God from definition using Anselm, Malcolm and Descartes. Question whether we can derive the existence of God from definition using Gaunilo, Aquinas and Kant. Suggest other arguments better (briefly). Question the male pronoun for God. Conclude).
As existence is never a defining predicate, it cannot be a defining predicate of the concept of God. (Explain that the question refers to Kant’s criticism of the ontological argument. Explain why people might agree with Kant. Bring in Anselm, Malcolm and Descartes to question the question and Kant’s idea that existence is a predicate generally and of God. Then use that to criticise. Conclude with your view).
Discuss critically Kant’s claim that existence not a predicate. (This is the same question structurally as above).
A priori arguments for the existence of God are more persuasive than a posteriori arguments. Discuss. (Define a priori and a posteriori. Define persuasive. Note that ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments have these different starting points. Even religious experience. Explain why a priori arguments like ontological are more persuasive. Talk of the strengths of Anselm, Malcolm and Descartes. Then flip it and state cosmological arguments and teleological arguments from Aquinas, Paley and Anthropic Principle more persuasive. Bring in Gaunilo and Kant who criticise a priori ontological argument. Then mention weaknesses of a posteriori from Hume and generally before concluding).
How persuasive are ontological arguments for the existence of God? (Define persuasive. Define ontological arguments. Yes they are very persuasive. Explain Anselm and Descartes and justify. On the other hand…flip it…the are not persuasive because of Kant and Gaunilo criticisms. They could also be persuasive but not true. Conclude).
The ontological argument fails because it rests on a logical fallacy. Discuss. (Explain ontological argument say why it is not based on a logical fallacy and makes sense using Anselm and Descartes. Then flip it and criticise Anselm and Descartes and agree with the idea that it is based on a logical fallacy. Conclude,