If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
St Anselm’s ontological argument
- This is an a priori, deductive argument for the existence of God. Thus, its
conclusion is known through reason alone - independently of sense
experience and the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion
- Anselm argues that “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
(hereafter, the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB)) must exist.
- P1: The concept of a being than which none greater can be conceived (ie the
GCB) exists as a (coherent) concept in the mind (in the ‘understanding’).
- P2: Suppose, for reductio, that the GCB exists only in the mind and not in
reality.
- P3: A being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that
exists only in the mind.
- C1: Therefore, there is something greater than the GCB
- Anselm’s can be seen as a “reductio ad absurdum” argument – i.e. it
shows that the assumption that the GCB only exists in the mind leads
to a contradiction and should therefore be rejected.
- C2: Therefore (denial of P2), the GCB must exist in the mind and in reality.
- C3: Therefore, God exists in the mind and in reality.
Descarte’s ontological argument
- This is an a priori, deductive argument for the existence of God. Thus, its
conclusion is known through reason alone - independently of sense
, experience and the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion
- Descartes defines God as a supremely perfect being
- P1: He (or we) have a clear and distinct idea of God
- His idea is ‘open and present to the attending mind’ and precise and
separated from other ideas so that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing
other than what is clear.’
- P2: The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
- The ontological argument is not merely a proof but is a self-evident
axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free from philosophical prejudice
- P3: A supremely perfect being (God) has all perfections
- Each perfection is necessary condition
- P4: Existence is a perfection
- C: Therefore, a supremely perfect being (God) must exist
Malcom’s ontological argument
- This is an a priori, deductive argument for the existence of God. Thus, its
conclusion is known through reason alone - independently of sense
experience and the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion
- Malcom bases his argument upon model theory and through a process of
elimination he concludes that God existence is not necessarily false, not
contingently false and not contingently true but necessarily true
- P1: God is conceived as an unlimited/infinite being
- P2: Either God does not exist or God exists.
- P3: If God does not exist then God’s existence would be impossible
- This is because God cannot come into existence: it would either mean
that his existence was caused by something else or just “happened” to
occur, both of which would mean that God was limited.
- P4: If God does exist then God’s existence must be necessary
- This is because God cannot come into or go out of existence: it would
mean again that either God’s existence/demise was caused by
, something else or just “happened” to occur, both of which would mean
that God was limited.
- C1: Therefore, God’s existence is either impossible or necessary.
- P5: If God’s existence is impossible then the concept must be
self-contradictory.
- P6: The concept of a necessary being (God) is not self-contradictory (it is
coherent)
- C2: Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible.
- C3: Therefore, by process of elimination, God’s existence is necessary (God
must exist).
Gaunilo’s perfect island objection
- Gaunilo claims that this argument, if it were valid, could be applied equally
well to the greatest conceivable species of object – his example being the
greatest conceivable island.
- P1: The concept of an island than which none greater can be imagined (ie,
the greatest conceivable island/the GCI) exists as a (coherent) concept in the
mind (in the ‘understanding’).
- P2: Suppose, for reductio, that the GCI exists only in the mind and not in
reality.
- P3: An island that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than an island
that exists only in the mind.
- C1: Therefore, there is an island greater than the GCI.
- This reformulation of Anselm’s argument, like the original, is a
“reductio ad absurdum” argument – i.e. it shows that the assumption
that the GCI only exists in the mind leads to a contradiction and should
therefore be rejected.
- C2: Therefore (denial of P2), the GCI must exist in the mind and in reality.
- C3: Therefore, the GCI exists.
- Therefore, via a reductio ad absurdum argument, Gaunilo argues that
Anselm’s original argument must be invalid, given that if it worked it would
justify absurd conclusions.
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/1007961
3/
St Anselm’s ontological argument
- This is an a priori, deductive argument for the existence of God. Thus, its
conclusion is known through reason alone - independently of sense
experience and the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion
- Anselm argues that “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
(hereafter, the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB)) must exist.
- P1: The concept of a being than which none greater can be conceived (ie the
GCB) exists as a (coherent) concept in the mind (in the ‘understanding’).
- P2: Suppose, for reductio, that the GCB exists only in the mind and not in
reality.
- P3: A being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that
exists only in the mind.
- C1: Therefore, there is something greater than the GCB
- Anselm’s can be seen as a “reductio ad absurdum” argument – i.e. it
shows that the assumption that the GCB only exists in the mind leads
to a contradiction and should therefore be rejected.
- C2: Therefore (denial of P2), the GCB must exist in the mind and in reality.
- C3: Therefore, God exists in the mind and in reality.
Descarte’s ontological argument
- This is an a priori, deductive argument for the existence of God. Thus, its
conclusion is known through reason alone - independently of sense
, experience and the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion
- Descartes defines God as a supremely perfect being
- P1: He (or we) have a clear and distinct idea of God
- His idea is ‘open and present to the attending mind’ and precise and
separated from other ideas so that it ‘plainly contains in itself nothing
other than what is clear.’
- P2: The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
- The ontological argument is not merely a proof but is a self-evident
axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free from philosophical prejudice
- P3: A supremely perfect being (God) has all perfections
- Each perfection is necessary condition
- P4: Existence is a perfection
- C: Therefore, a supremely perfect being (God) must exist
Malcom’s ontological argument
- This is an a priori, deductive argument for the existence of God. Thus, its
conclusion is known through reason alone - independently of sense
experience and the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the
conclusion
- Malcom bases his argument upon model theory and through a process of
elimination he concludes that God existence is not necessarily false, not
contingently false and not contingently true but necessarily true
- P1: God is conceived as an unlimited/infinite being
- P2: Either God does not exist or God exists.
- P3: If God does not exist then God’s existence would be impossible
- This is because God cannot come into existence: it would either mean
that his existence was caused by something else or just “happened” to
occur, both of which would mean that God was limited.
- P4: If God does exist then God’s existence must be necessary
- This is because God cannot come into or go out of existence: it would
mean again that either God’s existence/demise was caused by
, something else or just “happened” to occur, both of which would mean
that God was limited.
- C1: Therefore, God’s existence is either impossible or necessary.
- P5: If God’s existence is impossible then the concept must be
self-contradictory.
- P6: The concept of a necessary being (God) is not self-contradictory (it is
coherent)
- C2: Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible.
- C3: Therefore, by process of elimination, God’s existence is necessary (God
must exist).
Gaunilo’s perfect island objection
- Gaunilo claims that this argument, if it were valid, could be applied equally
well to the greatest conceivable species of object – his example being the
greatest conceivable island.
- P1: The concept of an island than which none greater can be imagined (ie,
the greatest conceivable island/the GCI) exists as a (coherent) concept in the
mind (in the ‘understanding’).
- P2: Suppose, for reductio, that the GCI exists only in the mind and not in
reality.
- P3: An island that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than an island
that exists only in the mind.
- C1: Therefore, there is an island greater than the GCI.
- This reformulation of Anselm’s argument, like the original, is a
“reductio ad absurdum” argument – i.e. it shows that the assumption
that the GCI only exists in the mind leads to a contradiction and should
therefore be rejected.
- C2: Therefore (denial of P2), the GCI must exist in the mind and in reality.
- C3: Therefore, the GCI exists.
- Therefore, via a reductio ad absurdum argument, Gaunilo argues that
Anselm’s original argument must be invalid, given that if it worked it would
justify absurd conclusions.
