1. 1 D, E and F Ontological Argument (Ontological is from the Greek word for being, named by Kant)

2. The Big Picture
Deductive arguments - origins of the ontological argument Deductive proofs; the concept of ‘a priori’. St Anselm - God as the greatest possible being (Proslogion 2). St Anselm - God has necessary existence (Proslogion 3).

3. Deductive Proofs
For this theme, we will be looking at deductive, a priori arguments. The inductive arguments we have looked at argue for the probability of God’s existence; deductive arguments hold that it is logically necessary for God to exist. As these arguments are based on logic, they can also be categorised as a priori arguments. This means that unlike the arguments we have looked at so far, these arguments do not rely on our experiences, but logic.
Pair oral Work
One of the pair must explain the different between inductive and deductive, and the other must explain the different between a priori and a posteriori.
Your Task
Write a brief explanation of what is meant by ‘deductive proof’ and how an ‘a priori’ argument functions.

4. 2.Key terms – Paragraph 1
A priori – based on logic, prior to experience
Deductive – if the premises are true the conclusion will be true
Analytic statements – true by definition
Contingent – can exist or not exist, it depends on other for existence
Necessary existence – not contingent - actual necessity – exists
Logical necessity – true of necessity e.g. Triangle has 3 angles

5. Introduction – Paragraph 2
The ontological argument is based on a definition of the word God, if you understand God in terms of the definition it is logical to conclude that he exists and that his existence is not just possible but necessary. Origins The philosopher most associated with this argument is St Anselm, he lived in the 11th Century and was the Archbishop of Canterbury and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church. He wrote his ideas as a prayer not a philosophical argument, he called his work ‘Faith seeking understanding’ 2. Write up an introduction to the ontological argument in 20 words

6. Write down a list of characteristics that Christians claim God has.
In pairs:
Write down a list of characteristics that Christians claim God has.

7. Perfection = ?
Biscuit activity
- In your mind?
- In reality?

8. Paragraph 3 -Anselm’s essential claim is…
Existence is a predicate of God (it is a property or quality of God’s nature). By analysing the word God defined as ‘That than which nothing greater can be known’ it will be obvious, according to Anselm, that God exists. In ‘God exists’ the subject is ‘God’, the predicate is ‘exists’.

9. A predicate is…
‘an intrinsic property or quality of something’ Predicates of an elephant might be… A trunk, size, long ears, being a mammal, tusks, long memory, etc…

10. Predicates of…? The Earth A Car 3. How was Anselm trying to prove God?
4. Why did other Christians reject Anselm’s argument?

11. Anselm’s Ontological Argument
‘Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God”’
Psalm 14:1
Read page 8 of the old A2 book if you are stuck

12. Anselm’s First Argument
God is the greatest possible being which can be conceived (thought) of –’that than which nothing greater can be known’
God may exist either in the mind alone, or in reality as well.
Something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater than something which exists just as an idea in the mind alone.
Conclusion:
4) God must exist in reality and in the mind (or we have not thought of the greatest possible being).
A lottery win is better in reality than in the mind alone!
The painter analogy
Reduction ad absurdum – reduce to absurdity the opposite of what you believe e.g. God does not exist

13. Tasks from the booklet pages 2-6
Watch the video – write notes
Summary of Anselm
5.How did Anselm define God?
6. What perfections must this being have?
7. What does the fool understand?
8. Why does this being have to exist in understanding and reality?
9. Summarise Anselm’s analogy.
10. Why does Anselm believe God’s existence is necessary?

14. 1. Reductio ad absurdum – if he does exist in the mind alone then he is not greatest possible being.
2. Anyone who doesn’t accept it is a ‘fool’, as it is plain and obvious.
3. God’s existence is analytic (once we analyse the definition of the term we will see that God exists).
4. Painter and painting analogy (mind and reality).page 5
5. ‘a being which nothing greater can be conceived’: Anselm expects everyone will accept this definition.

15. Features of the first argument (for an essay plan).
God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be known’: Anselm expects everyone will accept this definition.
Reductio ad absurdum – proof by contradiction, if he does only exist in the mind alone then he is not greatest possible being. Absurd
God’s existence is analytic (once we analyse the definition of the term we will see that God exists).
Painter and painting analogy (mind and reality).page 5
Anyone who doesn’t accept it is a ‘fool’, as it is plain and obvious.

16. Ontological Argument Proslogian 3
How do these pictures connect to the ontological argument?
Read page 7
Write a paragraph in your notes on Anselm’s second form of the argument – Proslogian 3.

17. Anselm’s second argument (Proslogian 3) – self assess your paragraph – does it include . . .
God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be known.’
Something which cannot be thought not to exist (necessary) is greater than anything which can be thought not to exist (contingent).
Conclusion:
3) Therefore, God must necessarily exist

18. Argument 2: In simpler language…
You can’t think of anything greater than God.
Necessary things are greater than contingent things.
Conclusion
3) God is necessary

19. Features of Anselm’s second argument
1) This adds the idea that it is impossible for God not to exist – in other words, God is necessary. 2) It has been argued that his second argument was aimed at believers as a proof that existence in God is rational – to justify a belief in God.

20. Gaunilo’s response to Anselm
Gaunilo was a contemporary of Anselm, he was a monk who rejected Anselm’s argument in ‘On Behalf of the fool’ using three arguments….
On Gossip – the fool could have all kinds of made up things in his head, gossip for instance is unreliable – how should he be able to discern what is true and what is not?
2a. You can’t define things into existence
2b. The Perfect Island

21. Gaunilo offers a counter ‘reductio ad absurdum’
P1 I can conceive of _____________ P2 Such an _________ must possess all perfections P3 Existence is a perfection/predicate Conclusion Therefore, the perfect ________ exists
What predicates would it have? perfect island

22. The Perfect Island – in booklet
Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island.
As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists.
However, his argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest conceivable island would exist, as well as having all those other desirable properties.
Since we can conceive of this greatest or most perfect conceivable island, then it must exist.
What predicates would it have? perfect island

24. Examples
Think of some other examples you could include to demonstrate the point about the Perfect Island in an essay…

25. Anselm was actually quite impressed with Gaunilo’s argument, and even included it in later versions of his book, along with his reply. Anselm argued that, although Gaunilo was right in the case of an island, his objections didn’t work when applied to God, because an island has contingent existence, whereas God’s existence is necessary.
The ontological argument only works when applied to God, nothing else, because of God’s uniqueness and the way in which He exists. Of course this perfect island you can imagine doesn’t exist, because it is contingent – it relies on lots of other things for its existence. God doesn’t.
Contingent
Necessary

26. Anselm’s reply
What issues does Anselm raise with Gaunilo’s challenges?

27. DIL
Use the info in this Power point and the booklets to mark the essay for
‘Examine Anselm’s version of the ontological argument’ (20 marks).
Pages 20-21
Complete the two activities