2. Posteriori:
• Uses:
• Past experiences.
• Your senses.
• Strengths:
• Accessible (based on things you
know).
• Easy to interpret.
• Can’t deny (as you have seen it).
• Weaknesses:
• Subjective (interpretation).
• Requires leap of faith.
Priori:
• Uses:
• Definitions.
• Facts.
• Strengths:
• If definition is correct then
claim is unarguable.
• Weaknesses:
• Can not define something's (like
God and the after life).
• May have the wrong definition.
Statements:
• Statements:
• Sentences used by philosophers
to explain evidence.
• Also know as premises.
• Analytical:
• The predicate (or description) is
included in the subject.
• Examples:
• ‘Spinsters are unmarried and
female.’
• ‘Triangles have three sides and
three angles.’
• ‘God exists.’
• Synthetic:
• The predicate is not included in
the subject.
• Examples:
• ‘Spinsters are happy.’
• ‘Triangle are the most common
shape used in geometry.’
• ‘God exists’.
3. Type of argument:
• Claims God is real and aims to prove this
using a priori evidence.
• Convinced ‘exists’ is a predicate of God, so
used definitions.
• Have a deductive argument, meaning that if
the premises are true, the conclusion must
also be true.
• Claims his premises are analytical in nature
(contain predicates) throughout his book.
• For example – a triangle has three sides –
triangle, three sided.
• Analytical statements prove God as they
leave no other alternative.
Form 1:
• Must have a definition of ‘X’
before we can assert or deny it.
• Used ‘a being to which nothing
greater can be conceived’ as the
definition of God.
• If you accept the definition, you
must accept that God is real.
• Even the suggestion that there is
no God (atheism) requires the
concept of God (admit the
definition is correct)
• God has to exist in reality for him
not to be limited.
• It is impossible to conceive of
anything other than God, because
the greatest being imaginable will
always fit that definition of God.
• Therefore, ‘existence’ must be a
predicate of God.
• Therefore, God is real.
Quotes:
• ‘The fool has said in his heart there is
no God’ – Doesn’t make sense to
deny a definition.
• ‘Nonsensical language’ – In an
attempt to prove ‘nothing’, atheists
admit that God is the greatest while
limiting him to non-existence.
• ‘Reduction ad absurdum’ – absurd to
refuse God is real.
Summary:
• Must have a definition of
something before
proving/disproving it.
• Therefore, need a definition
of God which is the ‘greatest
being’.
• To be the greatest, he can
not be limited.
• Non-existence is a big
limitation.
• Therefore, God exists.
For
4. Argument:
• God cannot be proven to exist a priori.
• Accuses Anselm of ‘bringing’ things into
existence.
• Uses analogy of the greatest island to show that
it can exist only in the mind not in reality.
• Since the island is the greatest in every way in
the mind, using Anslem’s logic it would exist in
reality as he states that existence is a predicate
of greatness.
• Since part of greatness is existence, the worst
island that exists wold be better than the best
one that doesn’t.
• But we know in our logic the island does not
exist, otherwise anything could exist.
• Therefore, existence is not a predicate of
greatest and greatest is not a predicate of God.
Quotes:
• ‘On behalf of the fool’ – as the atheist.
• ‘An object can hardly or never be conceived
according to the world alone’ – any object you
try to define can never be proven by word’s
alone – you need experience.
Summary:
• If the word greatest equals
existence, then it means existence
for any object.
• We know that the island people
think of as greatest does not exist.
• That is because greatest does not
equal existence.
• Existence does not help
understanding so is not a predicate.
Link to Anslem:
• Anslem claims existence
is a predicate because
the greatest being can
not be limited be non-
existence.
• Gaunilo claims
existence is not a
predicate because
greatness does not
equal existence for
everything so therefore
does not equal it for
anything.
Against
5. Quotes:
• ‘I do not seek to understand that I
mat believe but I believe in order to
understand. For this also I believe
that unless I believed, I should not
understand.’ - He did not write form
one as an argument to prove God as
he was a monk just expressing his
belief.
• ‘Hence the being that which a
greater is conceivable must be
whatever should be attributed to the
essence.’ – Therefor, what people
call God can not be thought of as
anything else, as it is a necessary
being as we are contingent on it.
Argument:
• Tried to prove why God cannot ‘cease to exist’.
• Island can be the greatest possible island you
can think of.
• However, they are to different examples, as
we cannot imagine an island that wouldn’t
rely on something else for its existence as the
island is not necessary and I therefore
contingent.
• The island is contingent, while God is
necessary.
• To compare God (a necessary) to the island (a
contingent) is missing the point.
• In order to be the greatest possible being one
should fit the definition of necessary and not
rely on anything else for one’s existence.
• Basically adding ‘necessary’ as a predicate of
God
• In order to be necessary you must not be
contingent and therefore must be greatest
being – God.
Summary:
• Aim is to show how God can
not cease to exist.
• Contingent and necessary,
making it a priori argument.
• Still uses the definition of God
– ‘a being to which nothing
greater can be conceived.’
• Must be God as can’t think of
another being of attribute it
to.
For
6. Discourse of Method:
• ‘I think, therefore I am’ – the only way
you know you are in existence is your
innate ability to think.
• Therefore, the existence of the self could
be considered a known, logical fact.
• Once this is accepted, we can then seek
knowledge of the wider universe.
• Knowledge following from our own
existence we can then look for
knowledge of God using thought.
• Existence is a predicate that is known
and understood, is a predicate of you
because you can think.
Argument:
• Starts off with a definition of God – ‘supremely
perfect being’ – same definition as Anslem.
• By definition, God must exist to be a being as
existence is a perfection.
• A thing which did not exist would be by
definition not perfect, as the existing version is
more complete.
• So anything perfect by definition must exist.
Aim:
• To explain what a predicate is and therefore why
existence is one of Gods to disprove Gaunilo.
• God remains a ‘special case’ as he is not contingent
and also because he can have no limitations such as
non-existence – so must have existence as a predicate.
• ‘Supremely perfect being’ – possesses all perfection.
• Existence is part of this perfection.
• Example; a triangle has predicates of ‘three’, God has
‘exists’.
• ‘It appears that existence can not be separated from
the essence of God, than the idea of a mountain from
a valley, or the equally of its three angles to a triangle.’
Summary:
• The way you work anything out is to think
it through.
• If you think about the definition of God
which you are trying to either prove or
disprove then the definition becomes of a
perfect being.
• To be that definition they must have no
limitations, including non-existence.
Main summary:
• Aimed to show why
existence must be a
predicate of God but
not everything else,
agreeing with
Gaunilo.
• A predicate helps us
to have knowledge of
something.
• To fit the definition of
God, it must have
existence as a
predicate.
• Therefore, existence
is a predicate of God.
For
7. Critic against Anslem:
• Stating the ‘God does not exist’ is not a
contradiction.
• Unless we assume that an object exists in the
first place, we cannot make contradicting
statements about it.
• If God is not real, and I never assumed he was, I
am not contradiction myself.
• Anselm assumes he is real, giving him a definition
that makes him real, calling the atheist a fool
when they never assumed this.
• Can’t assume him into existence.
Critic against Descartes:
• ‘Existence is not a predicate’.
• Saying X exists does not ass real information
about X, so is not a predicate.
• Because by talking about X in the first place we
assume that X does indeed exist.
Why existence isn’t a predicate:
• If you have a triangle it must have three sides, if
you do not have a triangle it doesn’t need three
sides.
• If you believe in God then existence is believed to
be a predicate, if you do not then it is not
needed.
• Predicates help prove an item, existence does
not. It is a quality and does not change the value.
• Example: 100 thalers (German coin) imagine 100
in your pocket, bringing it into existence does not
make it 101.
• Therefore, the predicate must change concept of
items.
• Did not change value if it exists. Predicate must
be a predicate or value.
Quotes:
• ‘a 100 thalers does not contain the least coin
more than 100 possible thalers’ – existence does
not change the value of something – an existing
God is no more great than a non-existent one.
Summary:
• Can’t contradict yourself as Anslem said if you never said God was
real in the first place.
• ’Existence is not a predicate’ – can’t have subjective predicates – God
is real/not real.
• A predicate is something that changes your understanding of a
concept, existence does not do that.
Against
8. Argument:
• Existence adds nothing to our knowledge
of God.
• Certain predicates tell you about an
object or adds to your knowledge.
• Existence adds nothing to concept of an
object – triangle needs ‘three’, not
existence.
• In order to understand the concept, you
would not try to understand the concept
without using predicates that help
imagine them.
• Just because something had a definition,
does not mean it exists – predicate tells
information, not exists.
• Non-existent beings have predicates, not
proving God.
Summary:
• Non-existent beings have
predicates too, so God
having predicates does
not prove his existence.
Quotes:
• ‘Cows and unicorns’ –
know what they are
regardless of if they are
real.
9. Argument:
• There is a ‘possible world’ in which
there exists a being of maximal
greatness (it must exist) and
maximal excellence (omniscient,
omnipotent ect.)
• If a maximally great and maximally
excellent being exists in one possible
world then it must exist in all
possible worlds.
• Or else it would not be maximally
great and excellent.
• Our world is a possible world.
• Therefore a maximally great and
maximally excellent being must exist
in our world too
• Therefore, God exists.
Summary:
• Version of the OA as he uses definition.
• An a priori argument as he uses
definitions and logic to prove God, not
past experiences.
• Differs from Descartes and Anselm as he
uses different definitions of God and it
concentrates on mind and reality, not
just reality.
For
10. Argument:
• The creation of the world is the most
supreme achievement conceivable.
• The value of an achievement is
measured by its intrinsic quality and
the ability of the creator (judge quality
of God by quality of world) and quality
of world by creator (best creator =
easy)
• The greater the limitation of the
creator, the more impressive the
achievement (something with
limitations has a bigger achievement)
• The greatest possible limitation of a
creator would be non-existence.
• Therefore, a world created by a non-
existence creator would be greater
than one created by an existent creator.
• An existing God is therefore not the
greatest conceivable being since an
even greater being would be one which
does not exist.
• Therefore, God does not exist.
Summary:
• The OA says that the existences of the
world equals a necessary being.
• Gaskin states you judge greatness on
achievement/what’s been made.
• You base achievement on the creator (7
year old, year 7, A-Level student) and how
able they are.
• The more limited the person, the greatest
the achievement (7 year old is better than
A-Level student)
• Biggest limitation you can have is none
existence.
• Therefore, the greatest being does not
exist.
11. Anselm form 2:
• We need a being to which we take our
existence from, the only possible being is a
necessary and fits the definition of God.
• Priori – uses definition of contingent and
necessary.
• Predicates – ‘necessary’ and ‘exist’ for
God.
• Definition – ‘a being to which nothing
greater can be conceived’
• ’Necessary’
• ‘Contingent’
• ‘Greatest’
Descartes:
• The word existence is part of the
definition of perfection, as a necessary
must be perfect it must be God.
Kant:
• Existence adds nothing to the value of
anything and is therefore not a predicate
– can’t contradict yourself.
• Priori – can not define something into
existence.
• Predicate – helps us gain knowledge of
something, existence doesn’t so
therefore isn’t a predicate.
Russell:
• Lots of things with definitions that
are not in existence (unicorns)
Plantinga:
• If God is real, then he exists in all
possible worlds. This is a possible
world so he exists.
Gaskin:
• The greatest achievements are by
those who do not exist.
• Priori – can change the definition of
something which he did to God.
• Definition – doesn’t have to be the
greatest as someone may think of
the greatest not existing.
• Predicate – possible to say non-
existence is a predicate.
Gaunilo:
• Can not bring items into existence based
purely on definition randomly.
• Priori – can bring anything into existence
(island) ‘An object can hardly or never be
conceived according to the world alone’
• Predicate – disagrees that existence is not a
predicate of greatest for it would have to be
for everything and it isn’t.
Anselm form 1:
• Argues God must exist both in mind and in
reality for him to fit the definition.
• Priori – uses existence as a predicate of God.
• Predicates – ‘exist’ for God.
• Definition – ’a being to which nothing
greater can be conceived.’
