The document discusses the ontological argument for God's existence. It explains Anselm's version of the argument, which claims that God must exist because God is defined as the greatest being conceivable, and a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind. It also discusses criticisms of the argument from philosophers like Gaunilo and Kant, who argue that just because something can be conceived does not mean it exists in reality, and existence is not an attribute that can be derived from a concept alone. Students are tasked with further analyzing and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument.

1. Homework
Listen to and read the Russell & Copleston Debate.
Fill in the answers on the question sheet for next
lesson (THURSDAY)
You will find it on the shared area Wdrive-RE-SM-
Philosophy-homework

2. The Ontological Argument: An Introduction
Learning Outcomes:
ALL will be able to explain the Ontological argument.
MOST will be able to analyse the strengths and weakness of the
ontological argument
SOME will be able to explain the significance of the ontological argument
in the context of the other arguments for the existence of God
January 19, 2015
Starter Task:
What is greater?

3. A priori or a posteriori knowledge?
 This triangle has 3 sides.
(a priori)
 The nearest station to Latimer is Kettering
station.
(a posteriori)
 The sun will rise tomorrow.
(a posteriori)
 The apple I am going to eat for lunch is a fruit.
(a priori)
 Jesus was the son of God.
(a posteriori) Learning Outcomes:
 ALL will be able to explain the Ontological argument.
 MOST will be able to analyse the strengths and
weakness of the ontological argument
 SOME will be able to explain the significance of the
ontological argument in the context of the other
arguments for the existence of God

4. A priori – a proposition based on a definition
and the use of logic alone, no experience
needed.
A posteriori – a proposition based upon
experience alone.
 Learning Outcomes:
 ALL will be able to explain the Ontological argument.
 MOST will be able to analyse the strengths and
weakness of the ontological argument
 SOME will be able to explain the significance of the
ontological argument in the context of the other
arguments for the existence of God

5. A definition of God
 Take a couple of minutes to think of
a definition of God.
 Make a list of the attributes of the
attributes of God.
 Learning Outcomes:
 ALL will be able to explain the Ontological argument.
 MOST will be able to analyse the strengths and
weakness of the ontological argument
 SOME will be able to explain the significance of the
ontological argument in the context of the other
arguments for the existence of God

6. Perfection = ?

7. Anselm says
 God is “that than which
nothing greater can be
conceived”
 “you can’t imagine anything
greater than God”
 “God is perfect in every way”

8. Anselm Says:
 If God is perfect in every way he
must exist in reality
 If he existed only in the mind we
could imagine a more perfect God –
one that existed in the mind and in
reality
God
God
+

9. Ontological Argument in a nutshell
- Something is greater if it exists
than if it doesn’t.
- If God is the greatest thing
imaginable, he must exist. For if he
didn’t, you could imagine something
greater – something with all his
qualities, but which did actually
exist. Learning Outcomes:
 ALL will be able to explain the Ontological argument.
 MOST will be able to analyse the strengths and
weakness of the ontological argument
 SOME will be able to explain the significance of the
ontological argument in the context of the other
arguments for the existence of God

10. Inductive and deductive
arguments
 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.
Argument Experience
Teleological
Cosmological
Moral
 Learning Outcomes:
 ALL will be able to explain the Ontological argument.
 MOST will be able to analyse the strengths and
weakness of the ontological argument
 SOME will be able to explain the significance of the
ontological argument in the context of the other
arguments for the existence of God

11. Inductive/deductive
cont’d…
 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

12. Task
 You will watch these clips and use the question
sheet to help you learn about the ontological
arguments and the arguments against it.
 You will have 45 mins to complete this.
 Part 1
 Part 2
 When you finish you need to attempt this 10 mark
question:
‘‘The ontological argument is convincing’ DiscusThe ontological argument is convincing’ Discus

13. The Ontological Argument
Ontological. (From the Greek ontos,
meaning being.)
Lesson objectives:
•DESCRIBE the ontological argument (Grade E & D)
•EXPLAIN the strengths and weaknesses of the
ontological argument (Grade C)
•EVALUATE the ontological argument and express
your own view of it. (Grade B & A)
January 19, 2015

14. Anselm’s argument
Anselm says that the definition, or essence, of God includes existence: God is a
perfect being, i.e. one than which none greater can be conceived.
HOW DOES THIS WORK? Lets say…
1. God exists in the understanding, but not in reality.
2. However, one can conceive of a being that not only exists in the
understanding, but also in reality itself.
3. A being that exists both in the understanding and in reality is greater
than a being that exists solely in the understanding.
4. Hence, one can conceive of a being greater than God.
Contradiction – reject premise 1.
But the problem here is that, even if one shows that ‘God
exists’ is an analytic truth, all one has done is say that
existence is a necessary property of the concept ‘God’.

15. What is an analytic statement?
SO if you said, “cold, white
snow”, or “a duffle coat with
toggles on it” you wouldn’t be
wrong, but you wouldn’t be
saying anything we couldn’t
already have worked out if we
knew the definition of the word.
An analytic statement tells us nothing about the world,
is just a definition…
AND we wouldn’t know whether any duffle coats or snow actually exist. If a
crazy, duffle-coat-hating person destroyed all the duffle coats in the world,
would duffle coats still have toggles on?

16. Remember Plato?
Plato used the idea that each thing has an
essence without which it wouldn’t be what it is.
Can you remember what Plato called the
essence, or paradigm, of things that actually
exist in the world? And how we can know about
them?
But does it make sense to say that things have
some kind of existence (somewhere, if not in
the visible realm) just because we can
conceive of them?
(Anselm had described God as perfect
goodness which causes goodness in
everything he creates. Sound familiar?)

17. Spot the difference…
Can you tell that one of these dogs actually exists and one
doesn’t just from the ideas of the dogs?

18. Gaunilo thought not
He said
1: we can’t conceive of
perfection – we have no
experience of such a thing,
and
2: just because you can
conceive of something (he
used the example of an
island), doesn’t make it
exist. If the fact that you
think you can conceive of
an existing island makes it
exist, your argument must
be flawed.
Discussion Question 1:
What would Plato have said about this?
Discussion Question 2:
What do you think? Can you conceive of
something you have no experience of? Infinity
and eternity?
Discussion Question 3:
Is this true? If you say you are
conceiving of an island that exists,
you’d know really that it didn’t. You
wouldn’t really being conceiving of an
existing island, you’d know you were
kidding yourself.

19. Descartes had his own version
of the ontological argument
Descartes has an idea of God as being one, perfect being.
Plato thought that we gain knowledge of concepts by
recollecting the time when we resided in the realm of Forms.
Descartes thought that we must have got our knowledge of
perfection from God, because we can have no experience of
perfection in this life. Unlike Plato he doesn’t believe in a cycle
of rebirth, but he does believe that God has imprinted some
knowledge on us so that we know certain things whatever
experience we have had in the world. Descartes says that we
get our knowledge of God from God, who has left his imprint
on our souls like the trademark a craftsman leaves on his work.
Question: Is this feasible? Do you think we have any innate
knowledge? What?

20. Some background
 Descartes’ ontological argument featured in his
book Meditations
 His aim of this book was to doubt everything
that he could possibly… to see what it was he
that he could not doubt (methodological
scepticism)
His answer; the one thing he could not doubt was
….
That he existed

21. “I think, therefore I am”

22. 3 minute philosophy
Good break down of Rene’s philosophy
Next he enquired into the existence of God to see
if he could be a deceiver.
→ He realised that he had within him a clear and
distinct idea of a Perfect God, which did not and
could not originate in him as a corporeal (physical,
finite) substance.
God must exist as the cause of this idea.

23. I think…
Both Anselm’s and Descartes’ starting point was
that God exists.
What do you think?
Task: Write Anselm’s argument for the
existence of God in bullet points. Make this the
centre of a mind map. Add on Gaunilo’s
criticisms and Kant’s criticism. Then add on your
views.
Use your text books to make additional notes
on the arguments