A: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

1. A: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT.

2. STARTING POINTS. • Is a priori : relies on definition of a word. • Is therefore, deductive and analytic. • The conclusion flows logically from the premises.(Does this make the conclusion right ?) • A predicate / perfection / quality / characteristic / attribute tells us something about the subject. • In the argument, Anselm says that the predicate is contained in the subject. • So, God’s existence can be shown to be self-evident by analysing the word “God.”

3. Inductive/Deductive: A question on proofs make sure you can explain difference between inductive and deductive • All the other arguments for the existence of God are inductive– they can at best only give a highly probable conclusion. • Inductive arguments are based upon a posteriori knowledge • – knowledge derived from (after) experience. • A deductive argument is based upon a priori knowledge. • The conclusion is implied directly by the premises, i.e. flows directly from them. • If the premises are true and the structure is valid, then the conclusion must be true. • The Ontological Argument is the only deductive argument for the existence of God. • → This means ontological arguments are the only arguments that could…prove God’s existence conclusively

4. Deductive Proofs are often composed of a series of premises or statements that, when stacked together, points towards a conclusion that is usually logically inescapable • Premise One: All Oceans contain water • Premise Two: The Atlantic is an Ocean • Conclusion: Therefore Atlantic contains water. Deductive Proof is the basis of the ontological argument for the existence of God. • Premise One: All birds can fly • Premise Two: Penguins are birds • Conclusion: Therefore Penguins can fly. Its factually inaccurate, One of the Premises were wrong! Now come up with your own deductive proofs ! Premise + Premise = Conclusion

5. Anselm: God as the greatest possible being. Composed Proslogion a book to offer single rational proof existence God. Faith came first for Anselm, Faith that God existed and is the ultimate good, reason was used to deepen his understanding of faith. “The fool says in his heart,        "There is no God…They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.” • Anselm says that even the fool has the concept of God in their mind, in order to reject God. There are two positions acceptance and denial , some would say this is the atheist vs theist debate. For Anselm’s Fool it was more about self-delusion, corruption and injustice, you are ‘Fool’ if you can avoid God’s justice. This is not a rejection of God but denial of being accountable to God (Divine Command Theory).

6. Proslogion 2: Activity Explain below in hieroglyphs • Premise 1: Beings exists in both the mind and in reality • Premise 2: God is the greatest possible being that can be thought of. • Conclusion: In order to be the greatest thing that can be thought of God must exist in mind and reality. • Anselm used the example of the painter and a painting, before it exists in reality , a painting needs to exists in the mind of the painter before it comes a reality. • As the argument relies on analysing a definition, clearly the definition of God is vital. • “A BEING THAN WHICH NOTHING GREATER CAN BE CONCEIVED.” Anselm states it is possible to exist in the mind and to exist in reality but not mutually inclusive, just because something exists in the mind does not mean it has to exist in reality. • However God is a being than nothing better than conceived, there is no greater being.

7. Anselm- God has necessary existence, Chapter 3 Proslogion, once you understand that God to be the greatest possible being then the next logical step is to conclude that God has a necessary existence. • God is a being which CANNOT be thought of not as existing (necessary) or he is a being which can be thought of as not existing (contingent). God is which nothing greater than conceived , God’s existence is greater than contingent. • To be Necessary and God is the greatest possible being that can be thought of, so therefore exists in reality as he is the greatest possible being

8. AO2: The extent to which ‘a priori’ arguments for God’s existence are persuasive. • The only thing needed in a priori argument is an understanding of the language, independent from experience means they are persuasive as they are not tainted by a group/evidence. • Priori proofs dependent on sound arguments, If premises are inaccurate then the conclusion will suffer the defects. If we accept facts about God that he necessarily exists , greatest being is persuasive. • Posteriori arguments, based on evidence gives us empirical basis. We accept reliability of medicines and science. • To counteract with posteriori (Cosmological/Teleological argument ) persuasive and proof that God exists.

9. AO2: The extent to which different religious views on nature of God impact on arguments for the existence of God. • Abrahamic religions accept God is omniscient , omnipresent and omnipotent. • The Ontological describes God with all these perfections , were it not so then the argument would be a non –starter • What about other attributes of God? Such as impersonal and transcendence, we assume Abrahamic attributes. • Traditional arguments for God’s existence tend to arise out of specific faith traditions and therefore nature of God is described in that tradition. • How about God’s limited power ? Or malevolent power?