ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

AO1

AO3

A priori - rely on logical deduction not sense experience

Deductive - if the premises are true then the conclusion is true

P1: God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived

Ontological = existence in Greek

Gods existence = a necessary truth which means Anselm's argument can not possibly be false

God's existence can be deduced from his definition

Anselm's reply to Guanilo's criticism formed part of his argument

Argument appears in Proslogium chapters 2-4

Definition of God = 'a being than which nothing greater can be conceived'

P2: This is a definition which even a fool would understand in his mind, even though he does not understand it to exist in reality

P4: Example of a painter, he has an idea in is mind of what he wants to paint but when he paints it, it exists in the mind and in reality

P5: It's greater to exist both in the mind and in reality than to only exist in the mind

P6: If God existed only in the mind, I could also think of something greater, namely a God who existed in reality also

C: Therefore, in order to be the greatest conceivable being, P1, God must exist both in mind + reality

P3: There is a difference between having an idea in the mind + knowing that this idea exists in reality

Gaunilo's criticism

Creates a parody of Anselm's argument to show it's observed

C: Therefore, the most perfect lost island must exist in reality

P2: It is greater to exist in reality then to exist only in the mind

So, Gaunilo is saying that the real fool would be anyone who argued in this way

P1: It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island

ANSELM REPLIED TO GUANILO'S CRITICISM

P2: An island than which no greater can be conceived would have to exist necessarily, since a contingent island would be less perfect than an island which existed unecessarily

P1: To be perfect, an island would have to be that than which no other greater being can be concieved

P3: But islands are contingent (could have failed to exist) so cannot exist necessarily

C: Therefore the logic of the argument related to the perfect island does not apply to God

P1: God is the greatest conceivable being

Kant's criticism - EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE

P2: The greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist

C: Therefore, God and God alone has necessary experience, he can't not exist

ANSELM RESPONDS TO GAUNILO BY SHOWING THAT NECESSARY EXISTENCE IS A PREDICATE (gives us information) OF ONLY GOD, NOT THINGS

Existence is not a predicate because it adds nothing to the concept of a thing

Real predicates give us new knowledge

If nothing new about the nature is learnt, then it doesn't exist

Example used by Kant 100 Thalers (coins) - you can describe the predicate of thalers, round, metallic ect. Each new predicate adds to our concept of the thalers.

If you were to say 'oh, by the way Thalers exist', nothing new has been added

Kant applies this to Anselm's argument

Anselm tells us that God is the greatest conceivable being

We can imagine what God is like through Descartes' predicates of God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent

If we were to say 'oh and by the way God exists' nothing has been added. We have no new information on God. So there is no difference between the concept of a God that exists vs God

Equally, we only know thalers really do exist if we experience them. This is the same with God, we must experience. logic alone gets us nowhere

It is deductive, so doesn't rely on what we observe

Other arguments, design argument is inductive which is observation by humans

Some say that inductive reasoning because human observation is seen as not always being reliable