THE ONTOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT.
A BASIC INTRODUCTION.
THIS MUST BE USED AS A STARTING POINT : OTHER SHEETS, TEXT BOOK AND
INFORMATION WILL BE NEEDED TO HAVE THE FULL PICTURE
.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
STARTING POINTS.
• Comes from Ontos :
Being.
• Is a priori : relies on
definition of a word.
• Is therefore, deductive
and analytic.
• The conclusion flows
logically from the
premises.
(Does this make the
conclusion right ?)
• A predicate / perfection /
quality / characteristic /
attribute tells us
something about the
subject.
• In the argument, Anselm
says that the predicate is
contained in the subject.
• So, God’s existence can
be shown to be selfevident by analysing the
word “God.”
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
CONTINUED.
• By analysing the word
“God” it will be obvious,
says Anselm, that God
exists.
• A bachelor is an
unmarried male :
• Subject=bachelor
• Predicate=male,
unmarried.
•
•
•
•
•
Anselm says :“God exists” :
Subject=God
Predicate=Exists.
1. What do you think of
the above analysis of
“God exists ?”
• 2. List 3 other a
priori/analytic statements
i.e. where the truth/falsity
is known by analysing the
statement.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
DEFINITION OF GOD.
• As the argument
relies on analysing a
definition, clearly
the definition of God
is vital :• “A BEING THAN
WHICH NOTHING
GREATER CAN BE
CONCEIVED.”
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
The Fool.
• Psalm 14 NIV
•
1 “The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.”
• Anselm says that even the fool has the
concept of God in their mind, in order to
reject God.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
FROM GOD’S DEFINITION…
• Greater=perfect
• Conceived=thought
of
• Existence is a
perfection you can
have or lack
• Perfection=having all
perfections/predicates/
qualities etc.
• So, to be “a Being
than..” God must
have the perfection of
existence or else he
would not be “a
Being..”
• WHY ?? Explain your
answer.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
THIS IS WHY FOLKS…
• It is surely better to exist in reality
than in mind alone.
• So, if God only had existence in the
mind, then there could be another being
who had existence in reality who would
then be greater/more perfect than God.
• But, this cannot be true, as God is “a
Being than..”
• So, God exists.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
GAUNILO
• He criticised this first form, mainly because
the first form has existence as a predicate.
• Anselm’s reply was that God is “a special
case” and the argument applies only to
necessary beings and not to contingent
things like islands.
• Anselm wrote a second form of the
ontological argument.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
ANSELM’S 2ND FORM.
• Here, existence is not treated as a predicate.
• Looks at 2 modes of existence : contingent
(could not have been) and necessary( could
not not be.)
• Basic form : greater/more perfect to have
necessary existence as opposed to contingent
existence. Why ?
• Contingent existence relies on another to
bring it into existence.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
2nd form (Cont.)
• This being is therefore limited. This being
cannot then be God as God is “a Being than..”
• If God were contingent/limited, then we could
conceive of another being who has the
predicate/property of necessary existence
and this being would then be greater/more
perfect than God, as it is more perfect to
have the perfection of necessary existence.
• So,… nearly there….!
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
GOD EXISTS !!!
• God’s existence must be necessary in
order for God to match up to the definition
that Anselm has given him.
• So, by analysing the definition of the word
God, Anselm has shown that God exists.
• To deny God’s existence, once we have
that definition of God is contradictory.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD
RESEARCH PIECE.
• Use at least two texts.
• Write an account of Anselm’s ontological
argument. You must separate out his two
forms.
• Using the WJEC Level descriptors, swop
your answer with someone else. Mark
each other’s work.
NGf L CYMRU GCaD