Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

The Ontolgical argument - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Anselm’s ontological argumnet form Proslogium 2
        
        P4-For example, a painter has an idea in his mind of what he wants to paint, but when he has painted it, that idea now exists both in his mind and in reality
        
        P5-It is greater to exist both in the mind and in reality than to exist only in the mind
        
        P3-There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing that this idea exists in reality
        
        P6-If God existed only in the mind, I could think of something greater namely a God who existed in reality also
        
        P2-This is a definition which even a fool understands in his mind, even though he does not understand it to exist in reality
        
        Conclusion-Therefore in order to be the greatest conceivable being, God must exist both in the mind and in reality
        
        Anselm’s reduced argument
        
        P1-God is the greatest conceivable being
        
        P2-It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
        
        C-Therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality
        
        P1-God is being than which nothing greater can be conceived
- - - - P2-It is greater to exist in reality than to exits only in the mind
      - Conclusion-Therefore the most perfect and real lost island must exist in reality
        
        Gaunilo believes that the concept of a perfect and real lost island, makes little sense since we know that such an island cannot exist. Gaunilo is using a method of argument called “Reduction ad absurdam”,which is Latin for “Argument of absurdity”-He is suggesting in effect that Anselm’s objects perfect lost cricket bats,perfect oak tress,perfect what you like, and so the real fool would be someone who argued this way. We therefore can show that a perfect island does not exit so Anselm’s argument does not work.
        
        Anselm’s response to Gaunilo
        
        C-Therefore the logic of the argumnet related to a perfect island does not apply to God
        
        Further-P1-God is the greatest conceivable being
        
        P3-But Islands are contingent, and so cannot exist necessarily
        
        P2-The greatest conceivable being cannot be convinced not to exist
        
        P2-An island than which no greater can be consciences would have to exist necessarily, since a contingent island would be less perfect than an island that existed necessarily
        
        C1-therefore,God and God alone, possesses necessary existence as God cannot no exist
        
        P1 To be perfect, an island would have to be “That island than which no greater can be conceived”
        
        Therefore to conclude, Anselm’s clearly refutes Gaunilo’s “perfect lost island”,argument. he shows that necessary existence is a predicate only of God, and not of contingent things.
      - P1-It is possible to conceive of the most perfect and real lost island
- - - - An example of this is the stamens that “A bachelor is an unmarried man”-This is obviously analytic-True by definition-as that is how we define a bachelor.
        Another example is the statement, “A unicorn is a horse with a horn”-This is also anyltic a dn true by definition, as that is how we define a unicorn.
      - However how do we know that there are any bachelors. The answe can only be through experience them. If you have an unmarried male in your family of marriageable age, then clearly “Bachelors exist” is true, because you’ve seen one. when discussing Unicorns. There is actually no proof towards their existence except in folklore.
      - Now when discussing the proposition “God exists necessarily”, which Anselm’s claims is analytic, and true by definition. It follows that one can only know God by experiencing him.
      - Some people do indeed claim to have experienced God, and this may be true or it may be false, but in either case it is a matter of experience and not of logic
      - To male this clear, A unicorn is a horse with a horn, this is logically true because that’s how we define a unicorn, but it does not follow that there really are any unicorns. Equally “God exists necessarily”, is logically true, because that’s how we define God, but it does not follow that there really is a God
      - Finally the ontological argument fails as it omits the powerful word of “If”-with unicorns if there are unicorns, then they will be horses with horns-with God-if there is a God, then God will exist necessarily