1. Evaluate the credibility of the ontological argument for the existence of God. 30 marks
Clarify and explain the key ideas.
A’priori
Deductive
Anselm – premises
Better to exist in reality and understanding than just in understanding
Link to Christianity – ideas about an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God
Idea
Kant 1 – an inseparable predicate does not prove existence
Aquinas – transitional error, humans not capable of proving God by intellect alone
Gaunilo – perfect island comparison
Argument Against
Anselm’s response to Gaunilo– misunderstood that God has necessary existence but islands are contingent.
Malcolm – a necessary being cannot not exist.
Counter Argument
Kant – existence is not a predicate
Moore – tame tigers example
Russell – existence only applies to something that occupies space in the world, need evidence
If existence is not a predicate of perfect then there is nothing in the definition of a perfect God that proves His existence.
Conclusion
If existence is not a predicate then it is not analytically true that a perfect God exists.

2. Evaluate the credibility of the ontological argument for the existence of God. 30 marks
Clarify and explain the key ideas.
The ontological argument takes an a priori approach, this is seeking to prove the existence of God based on logic and reason rather than empirical evidence. The argument is deductive meaning that the premises contain the conclusion that it reaches, and the argument is structured in such a way as to make the conclusion the only possible one that can be deduced from its premises.
The argument was developed by Anselm in 1078 who believed that the definition of God as ‘That which nothing greater can be conceived’ proved analytically that God existed. By
The premises of the argument can be set out as follows:
Premise 1: God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
Premise 2: It is better to exist in reality and in understanding than just understanding.
Premise 3: For God to be the greatest thing he must exist in reality and in understanding.
Conclusion: God exists in reality.
The premises of the argument seek to demonstrate that existing in reality is better than existing merely in understanding, and as God is the greatest, he must exist in reality. This is based on the idea that to only exist in understanding would mean that an improvement could be made to him, ie being brought into existence and this is logically impossible since God is the greatest thing and requires no improvement. Anselm’s definition of God was clearly influenced by Christian teachings of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, a being set apart from humans and perfect in every way.
Idea
A key weakness of the argument as a whole is its reliance upon the definition of God as perfect as proof of his existenece. Anselm argued that part of God being ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’ included God having the inseparable predicate of necessary existence. An inseparable predicate is a quality something must have in order for it to be that particular thing, eg an inseparable predicate of a triangle is having three sides, if you remove this quality, the shape is no longer a triangle. Kant criticised this approach by asserting that having an inseparable predicate does not automatically prove that something exists, it only tells us what it would be like if it did, therefore Kant believes we should understand this inseparable predict of necessary existence as ‘if God did exist, he would do so necessarily, and no non-necessarily existing being could be God’.
Aquinas expressed concern that Anselm was guilty of making a ‘transitional error’ that is, moving from the definition of God to the existence of God. Aquinas was sceptical of Anselm’s a’priori approach as he believed that fallible human intellect alone was not sufficient to prove the existence of God; instead he favoured an a’posteriori approach such as the cosmological and design arguments.
Gaunilo shared similar objections about defining something into existence. Gaunilo explained this by comparing Anselm’s idea of God as perfect and therefore existing to that of a ‘perfect island’; his point being that just because you can define a perfect island, it does not mean it actually exists, you would still need some other proof. This lack of evidence arguably damages the credibility of the argument.

3. Evaluate the credibility of the ontological argument for the existence of God. 30 marks
Argument Against
Interestingly, Gaunilo voiced his concerns during Anselm’s lifetime and so he was able to respond. Anselm criticised Gaunilo for failing to understand the concept of necessary existence, he believed Gaunilo’s comparison between God and an island to be invalid as islands have contingent existence, they could cease to exist through changes in the water level etc yet God has necessary existence which means that there is nothing that can be done to stop him from existing. Norman Malcolm supported Anselm in this assertion and concurred that a necessary being cannot not exist. A strength of this is that it is logical, something that does not rely upon anything else to exist cannot cease to exist because we cannot remove any of the factors for its existence. For some people, understanding the logic of necessary existence, makes the argument credible
Counter Argument
I however remain unconvinced as to the credibility of the argument. Firstly, I am inclined to agree with Hume in his conclusion that necessary existence is an incoherent concept and therefore not enough to base on argument on. I also agree with Kant in his challenge to the idea that existence is in fact a predicate of perfection or indeed anything else. Part of Anselm’s first premise was the assumption that necessary existence was a predicate of being God, for the argument to succeed this has to be analytically true. Kant believed that it could not possibly be true as existence is not even a real predicate, ‘Existence is clearly not a real predicate’. The function of a predicate is to develop our understanding of something, to give us more information about something and existence fails to do this.
This point was echoed by Moore who said that whilst the statement ‘Some tame tigers do not growl’ gives us information about the temperament of the tigers, the statement ‘Some tame tigers do not exist’ does not enable us to learn anything about the animals.
Russell raised a similar objection, he proposed that existence was not a predicate but rather something that indicated the instance of something in the spatio-temporal world. Russell asserted that the logical structure of a claim to existence is not enough evidence, we need some information about a thing or being in order to make an accurate claim about its existence.
If existence in no longer of predicate of perfection, or indeed anything else then there is nothing in the definition of a ‘perfect’ or ‘greatest conceivable being’ that demonstrates its existence in reality; and it is this challenge that I feel loses the argument all credibility.
Conclusion
In conclusion, if existence is not a predicate of being the greatest, then it is not analytically true that the greatest conceivable being exists and so the argument fails to prove deductively the existence of God and is therefore not credible.

4. Evaluate the credibility of the ontological argument for the existence of God. 30 marks
The ontological argument takes an a priori approach, this is seeking to prove the existence of God based on logic and reason rather than empirical evidence. The argument is deductive meaning that the premises contain the conclusion that it reaches, and the argument is structured in such a way as to make the conclusion the only possible one that can be deduced from its premises.
The argument was developed by Anselm in 1078 who believed that the definition of God as ‘That which nothing greater can be conceived’ proved analytically that God existed. By
The premises of the argument can be set out as follows:
Premise 1: God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.
Premise 2: It is better to exist in reality and in understanding than just understanding.
Premise 3: For God to be the greatest thing he must exist in reality and in understanding.
Conclusion: God exists in reality.
The premises of the argument seek to demonstrate that existing in reality is better than existing merely in understanding, and as God is the greatest, he must exist in reality. This is based on the idea that to only exist in understanding would mean that an improvement could be made to him, ie being brought into existence and this is logically impossible since God is the greatest thing and requires no improvement. Anselm’s definition of God was clearly influenced by Christian teachings of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, a being set apart from humans and perfect in every way.
A key weakness of the argument as a whole is its reliance upon the definition of God as perfect as proof of his existenece. Anselm argued that part of God being ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’ included God having the inseparable predicate of necessary existence. An inseparable predicate is a quality something must have in order for it to be that particular thing, eg an inseparable predicate of a triangle is having three sides, if you remove this quality, the shape is no longer a triangle. Kant criticised this approach by asserting that having an inseparable predicate does not automatically prove that something exists, it only tells us what it would be like if it did, therefore Kant believes we should understand this inseparable predict of necessary existence as ‘if God did exist, he would do so necessarily, and no non-necessarily existing being could be God’.
Aquinas expressed concern that Anselm was guilty of making a ‘transitional error’ that is, moving from the definition of God to the existence of God. Aquinas was sceptical of Anselm’s a’priori approach as he believed that fallible human intellect alone was not sufficient to prove the existence of God; instead he favoured an a’posteriori approach such as the cosmological and design arguments.
Gaunilo shared similar objections about defining something into existence. Gaunilo explained this by comparing Anselm’s idea of God as perfect and therefore existing to that of a ‘perfect island’; his point being that just because you can define a perfect island, it does not mean it actually exists, you would still need some other proof. This lack of evidence arguably damages the credibility of the argument.

5. Interestingly, Gaunilo voiced his concerns during Anselm’s lifetime and so he was able to respond. Anselm criticised Gaunilo for failing to understand the concept of necessary existence, he believed Gaunilo’s comparison between God and an island to be invalid as islands have contingent existence, they could cease to exist through changes in the water level etc yet God has necessary existence which means that there is nothing that can be done to stop him from existing. Norman Malcolm supported Anselm in this assertion and concurred that a necessary being cannot not exist. A strength of this is that it is logical, something that does not rely upon anything else to exist cannot cease to exist because we cannot remove any of the factors for its existence. For some people, understanding the logic of necessary existence, makes the argument credible.
I however remain unconvinced as to the credibility of the argument. Firstly, I am inclined to agree with Hume in his conclusion that necessary existence is an incoherent concept and therefore not enough to base on argument on. I also agree with Kant in his challenge to the idea that existence is in fact a predicate of perfection or indeed anything else. Part of Anselm’s first premise was the assumption that necessary existence was a predicate of being God, for the argument to succeed this has to be analytically true. Kant believed that it could not possibly be true as existence is not even a real predicate, ‘Existence is clearly not a real predicate’. The function of a predicate is to develop our understanding of something, to give us more information about something and existence fails to do this. This point was echoed by Moore who said that whilst the statement ‘Some tame tigers do not growl’ gives us information about the temperament of the tigers, the statement ‘Some tame tigers do not exist’ does not enable us to learn anything about the animals. Russell raised a similar objection, he proposed that existence was not a predicate but rather something that indicated the instance of something in the spatio-temporal world. Russell asserted that the logical structure of a claim to existence is not enough evidence, we need some information about a thing or being in order to make an accurate claim about its existence. If existence in no longer of predicate of perfection, or indeed anything else then there is nothing in the definition of a ‘perfect’ or ‘greatest conceivable being’ that demonstrates its existence in reality; and it is this challenge that I feel loses the argument all credibility.
In conclusion, if existence is not a predicate of being the greatest, then it is not analytically true that the greatest conceivable being exists and so the argument fails to prove deductively the existence of God and is therefore not credible.