AO1) Explain the Ontological arguments
proposed by Anselm, Malcolm, and Descartes
(20 marks)
The Ontological argument is a deductive and a priori argument for the
existence of God, it consists of analytical statements which were proposed by
several philosophers like Anselm, Malcolm, and Descartes. If the premise is
true, then it is illogical to not accept the conclusion since Ontological
arguments are supposed to derive from facts and we can conclude an answer
even before experiencing the situation.
Anselm’s arguments consist of the idea that God is “a being than which
nothing greater can be conceived”. Similarly, to Descartes, Anselm believes
that this concept naturally occurs in one’s mind and can be understood
perfectly even if it does not make sense in reality, since he is reliant upon the
proposition that there is a difference between having an idea in the mind and
knowing that this idea exists in reality. He uses the Painter analogy when a
person has an idea in his mind of what he wants to paint; but when he has
painted it, the idea now exists in both his mind and in reality. This deductive
argument of Anselm conveys that it is greater to exist in both the mind and in
reality than to just exist in the mind. Anselm’s argument rests upon the
decisive belief that in order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must
exist both in the mind and in reality.
Furthermore, Anselm’s arguments were criticised by a monk, Gaunilo of
Marmoutiers through the perfect island analogy, this later led to Anselm’s
second part of the deductive, a priori argument for the existence of God.
Anselm responds to the monk’s criticism by demonstrating that for something
in this situation the island to be perfect it would have to be ‘an island than
which no greater can be conceived’. This would mean that it would have to
exist necessarily since a contingent island would be less perfect than an island
that existed necessarily, but the island is contingent so Anselm uses logical
certainty that by definition no contingent thing can exist necessarily, therefore
he concludes that which can be conceived not to exist is not God. Anselm gives
a clear refutation of Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ argument; he shows that
necessary existence is a predicate only of God and not of things.
proposed by Anselm, Malcolm, and Descartes
(20 marks)
The Ontological argument is a deductive and a priori argument for the
existence of God, it consists of analytical statements which were proposed by
several philosophers like Anselm, Malcolm, and Descartes. If the premise is
true, then it is illogical to not accept the conclusion since Ontological
arguments are supposed to derive from facts and we can conclude an answer
even before experiencing the situation.
Anselm’s arguments consist of the idea that God is “a being than which
nothing greater can be conceived”. Similarly, to Descartes, Anselm believes
that this concept naturally occurs in one’s mind and can be understood
perfectly even if it does not make sense in reality, since he is reliant upon the
proposition that there is a difference between having an idea in the mind and
knowing that this idea exists in reality. He uses the Painter analogy when a
person has an idea in his mind of what he wants to paint; but when he has
painted it, the idea now exists in both his mind and in reality. This deductive
argument of Anselm conveys that it is greater to exist in both the mind and in
reality than to just exist in the mind. Anselm’s argument rests upon the
decisive belief that in order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must
exist both in the mind and in reality.
Furthermore, Anselm’s arguments were criticised by a monk, Gaunilo of
Marmoutiers through the perfect island analogy, this later led to Anselm’s
second part of the deductive, a priori argument for the existence of God.
Anselm responds to the monk’s criticism by demonstrating that for something
in this situation the island to be perfect it would have to be ‘an island than
which no greater can be conceived’. This would mean that it would have to
exist necessarily since a contingent island would be less perfect than an island
that existed necessarily, but the island is contingent so Anselm uses logical
certainty that by definition no contingent thing can exist necessarily, therefore
he concludes that which can be conceived not to exist is not God. Anselm gives
a clear refutation of Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ argument; he shows that
necessary existence is a predicate only of God and not of things.
