ONTOLOGICAL (AQA)
Question bundle (5,12,25)
, Exam questions:
1. In what sense are ontological arguments a priori? (3)
a. Ontological arguments start from reflection upon the concept and nature of God. No
sense experience is required to prove whether a statement is true or false e.g., to
prove whether God exists e.g. analytic truths are a priori as they are true in the
virtue of the meaning of words (triangle has three sides)
2. In what sense are ontological arguments deductive? (3)
a. Deductive arguments are arguments that deal in certainty, where the conclusion
logically follows from the premises if no contradictions are found if the premises is
true then the conclusion must be true. In the ontological argument the conclusion
logically follows from its premises.
b. An argument whose conclusion is logically entailed by its premises, if premises is
true then the conclusion cannot be false
3. What is an analytic truth? (3)
a. True in the meaning of the virtue of the words e.g., triangle has three sides, this is
usually found a priori no sense experience is necessary
4. What is a predicate? (3)
a. Predicate is a part of a sentence/clause that contains a verb/adjective to describe
the subject e.g. Jane is happy. The word ‘happy’ is a predicate as it describes Jane.
Kant objects to an ontological argument saying contingent existence is not a
predicate as it does not change the image we conceive of God. Malcom argues
further to say that necessary existence is a predicate not contingent existence
5. What does reductio ad absurdum mean? (3)
a. It means reducing an argument to absurdity, it means a contradiction in an
argument. This can be seen in Gaunilo’s response of the perfect island against
Anselm’s proslogion/ ontological argument. You cannot just define things into and
out of existence as this is a ridiculous concept.
6. How does necessary differ from contingent existence? (5)
a. Necessary existence is existence that always exists (exists all the time) and cannot
ever be brought out of existence, true in all possible worlds, whereas contingent
existence can be taken out and put into the world e.g., a brown chair can come in
and out of existence. Malcom uses necessary existence in his ontological argument.
God is either existing necessarily which is a predicate or it is impossible as it is self-
contradictory.
7. Explain Anselm’s’ ontological argument for the existence of God (5)
a. God is the greatest possible thing ‘that than which nothing greater can be
conceived’, we can conceive of God in our minds, it is greater to exist in the mind
and reality than just in the mind, God must exist in reality as well as the mind.
b. Necessary existence is coherent, a necessary being is greater than a contingent
being, the greatest being must exist necessarily
Question bundle (5,12,25)
, Exam questions:
1. In what sense are ontological arguments a priori? (3)
a. Ontological arguments start from reflection upon the concept and nature of God. No
sense experience is required to prove whether a statement is true or false e.g., to
prove whether God exists e.g. analytic truths are a priori as they are true in the
virtue of the meaning of words (triangle has three sides)
2. In what sense are ontological arguments deductive? (3)
a. Deductive arguments are arguments that deal in certainty, where the conclusion
logically follows from the premises if no contradictions are found if the premises is
true then the conclusion must be true. In the ontological argument the conclusion
logically follows from its premises.
b. An argument whose conclusion is logically entailed by its premises, if premises is
true then the conclusion cannot be false
3. What is an analytic truth? (3)
a. True in the meaning of the virtue of the words e.g., triangle has three sides, this is
usually found a priori no sense experience is necessary
4. What is a predicate? (3)
a. Predicate is a part of a sentence/clause that contains a verb/adjective to describe
the subject e.g. Jane is happy. The word ‘happy’ is a predicate as it describes Jane.
Kant objects to an ontological argument saying contingent existence is not a
predicate as it does not change the image we conceive of God. Malcom argues
further to say that necessary existence is a predicate not contingent existence
5. What does reductio ad absurdum mean? (3)
a. It means reducing an argument to absurdity, it means a contradiction in an
argument. This can be seen in Gaunilo’s response of the perfect island against
Anselm’s proslogion/ ontological argument. You cannot just define things into and
out of existence as this is a ridiculous concept.
6. How does necessary differ from contingent existence? (5)
a. Necessary existence is existence that always exists (exists all the time) and cannot
ever be brought out of existence, true in all possible worlds, whereas contingent
existence can be taken out and put into the world e.g., a brown chair can come in
and out of existence. Malcom uses necessary existence in his ontological argument.
God is either existing necessarily which is a predicate or it is impossible as it is self-
contradictory.
7. Explain Anselm’s’ ontological argument for the existence of God (5)
a. God is the greatest possible thing ‘that than which nothing greater can be
conceived’, we can conceive of God in our minds, it is greater to exist in the mind
and reality than just in the mind, God must exist in reality as well as the mind.
b. Necessary existence is coherent, a necessary being is greater than a contingent
being, the greatest being must exist necessarily
