bullet summary: the ontological argument

• written as an intra-faith argument for men to solidify faith.
• there are limitations on a posteriori arguments and we cannot trust our senses
• for aquinas god is unknowable
• tries to understand god using only reason, a priori
• the claim is that god, by definition, exists.
• but can we go from definition to fact?

• proslogion 2 was aimed at believers, following anselm’s motto ‘credo ut intelligam’
• we must believe god exists to be able to understand him
• it is a prayer addressed to god

• poslogion 2 demonstrates that god exists
• anselm uses the definition that god is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
• the argument rests of accepting this definition, but why should we?
• anselm uses a painter to show the difference between having an idea and it actually existing
• it rests on the impossibility of contradiction
• he says even a fool would accept the definition
• explains the difference between things we understand and things which are understood to exist
• this is the fool’s position on god is that he knows what god i but doesn’t believe he is real, to anselm this is a contradiction
• the word god implies existence, so he must
• if god wasn’t real we could conceive a greater god.

• proslogion 3 shows god is who he says he is
• it emphasises that it is only possible to think of him as existing
• as humans we are contingent, but god is necessary and the only one of his kind
• he cannot be and not be at once, so he must be

• gaunilo, a contemporary, argued that anselm was wishfully thinking god into existence.
• he was a believer too but thought it was a weak argument.
• consider a perfect but lost island, so we are not sure if it exists
• it could be a contradiction to say it is perfect because it would have to exist
• so, if we think of something as perfect it has to exist
• this is absurd, the most perfect donut does not exist just because it is perfect

• anselm responded and he pointed out an island is contingent. it needs sand, sea etc.
• god is supremely necessary, so this argument on applies to god
• he should have added that the idea of a perfect island is flawed because perfect is subjective
• anselm also argued that thinking of god is not enough, he must be understood
• the fool can say there is no god but not understand because nonsense can make sense to a fool
• to a rational mind, ‘there is no god’ is nonsense

• aquinas criticises anselm and argues things are self-evident in two ways: it itself and to us
• we do not, and cannot, know enough about god to claim he is self-evident
• there is no way to demonstrate it, the way we can show a square has four sides
• our way to god is indirect

• descartes argued god is by definition perfect
• he must contain all perfections
• if existing things are more perfect, then god must have this perfection and must exist
• existing is a defining predicate on the concept of god, the same way a triangle needs three sides to be a triangle
• a god who does not exist would not be god

• kant responds saying if descartes is right there is no contradiction and no impossibility
• i could accept that IF god existed THEN he would exist necessarily, but that i did not believe in him
• existence is not a predicate at all
• by saying god exists nothing is added to the concept of god
• saying my cat exists is not meaningful as it would be if i say my cat is tabby
• real and imaginary £100 is still the same amount
• a predicate must add to the concept, but existence doesn’t