Transcript Slide 1

The Ontological
Argument
An argument of two
halves
An argument of two halves ...
Learning Objectives
To know the two halves of Anselm’s
ontological argument
 To understand why he felt that it was
impossible to NOT accept that God exists

What do we know so far?
TTWNGCBC
 Existence is a property
 It is greater to exist than not exist
 The greatest possible being must be great
in every possible way

 And
that includes existing
Who’s the greatest?
GOD
ZOG
Love
10/10
7/10
Power
10/10
9/10
Knowledge
10/10
5/10
Existence
0/10
10/10
A word about Proslogion

Argument for the existence of God or a
prayer to God
 Devout

exploration of faith
Doesn’t only offer argument for existence
 Also
the attributes of God
TTWNGCBC

“Aliquid quo nihil maius possibit”

God is a being that cannot be improved
upon. To think of a greater being means
that being is God.
To sum up

If God exists in the mind only (in intellectu)
alone then a greater being could exist in
both the mind and reality (in re)
Proslogion 2

“The fool has said in his heart, “There is
no God” (Ps 14:1; 53:1)

Contradiction of the atheist
The fool understands the claim that God
exists
 Does not believe that God exists

It all boils down to ...

Anyone who claims to understand what it
means to say that God exists must have
knowledge of God

Whatever is understood must exist in the
understanding
The painter

In Proslogion 2 Anselm uses the following
illustration

The painter knows what he is going to paint
before he paints it
 It exists in his understanding
 When he paints it it then exists
in his understanding and in
reality
Be careful

Anselm is NOT saying ‘because I think of
God he must exist’

‘Anselm IS saying: ‘It is when I think of him
I realise the necessity of God’s existence.
Existence imposes itself on my thoughts –
rather than my thoughts imposing
existence of God’
Reductio ad absurdum
Argument
 Suppose God only exists in one’s
understanding
 Then God could be greater by existing in
reality
 This means that a greater God is possible
– one that exists in reality
Reductio as absurdum

This means that a greater God is possible
– one that exists in reality
A contradiction of the definition of God?
 Therefore the opposite conclusion must be
true

Reductio as absurdum

Anselm has faith in the existence of God

Logic tells us that it would be absurd to
think otherwise
2nd part of Anselm’s argument

Existence alone is not enough: that would
make God like us

God’s existence is necessary
God’s necessary existence





Nothing greater than God can be conceived
It is greater to exist as a necessary being than
a contingent being
If God exists only as a contingent being then a
greater being can be imagined: a necessary
being
This necessary being would be greater than God
Therefore God must be a necessary being and
exist in reality
God’s necessary existence

God is a being with necessary existence

“What art thou, then, Lord God, than
whom nothing greater can be conceived?

The difference between the fool and the
believer
Gaunilo’s Lost Island
To recap
Existence is a perfection
 It is better to exist in re than in intellectu
 According to Anselm you CANNOT
truthfully say God doesn’t exist in reality

A

contradiction
God as understood hypothetically must
have every possible perfection
To recap

An a priori argument
 God’s
existence is tied up with the concept of
him
Cannot have the concept of God without
being compelled to accept his existence
 Cannot deny his existence without having
the concept of him

 One
cannot be an atheist without
contradiction
To recap

The fool has thought what cannot be
thought
 His
thinking is incoherent and selfcontradictory
 He only knows the word God, not God himself

That God exists is true by definition
What are these?
Do Hobbits exist?
So what do we know?
1.
2.
3.

We all know what a Hobbit is.
Hobbits don’t exist.
Hobbits are a fictional species created in
the 20th century by JRR Tolkien.
Can we apply Anselm’s
logic to this?
Gaunilo of Marmoutiers
11th century Benedictine Monk
 Thesis: ‘In Behalf of the Fool’
 Anselm’s argument fails because the
same kind of logic would force you to
conclude that many things exist which
certainly do not.

Anselm’s argument
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
God is that being than which no greater can
be conceived.
It is greater to exist in reality than merely as
an idea.
If God does not exist, we can conceive of an
even greater being, that is one that does
exist.
Therefore, God must indeed exist in reality.
Therefore, He exists.
Gaunilo’s argument
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Lost Island is that island than which no
greater can be conceived.
It is greater to exist in reality than merely as
an idea.
If the Lost Island does not exist, we can
conceive of an even greater island, that
is one that does exist.
Therefore, the Lost Island must indeed exist
in reality.
And the problem?

The Lost Island does not exist, even though
the logical argument claims that it does.

So can we trust Anselm’s version?
Criticisms of Gaunilo

Look at the description of the island
 The
more riches and delicacies it has the
better it is
No maximum amount of these that an
island can have
 Therefore it will ALWAYS be possible to
imagine a greater island
 Therefore the concept of a ‘perfect’ island
is incoherent – there can be no such thing

Plantinga and Gaunilo
The concept of TTWNGCBC does not
apply to an island in the same way as it
applies to God
 Anselm’s argument ONLY applies to God

A
necessary being
 The greatest conceivable
 The greatest possible
Returning to Hobbits

If we have a concept of Hobbits does that
mean they have to exist?
Existence is not a characteristic of a Hobbit
 Hobbits are not TTWNGCBC
 It doesn’t matter if they don’t
exist because they aren’t
considered to be the greatest

Misconceptions

Remember
≠ existence
 Existence = thought
 Thought
God exists because we can conceive him?
 Hobbits exist because we can conceive
them?

Homework

Q4-5 on the sheet
Descartes Argument
Rene Descartes
1596-1650
 Set out his argument in his Meditations
 Pondered on the nature of existence
 Cogito ergo sum

 Doubted
he knew anything
 Then realised that the ONLY thing he
could know was that he was thinking
 Concluded I think, therefore I am
Rene Descartes
Defined God as a supremely perfect
being
 From here tried to prove God’s
existence ...

Rene Descartes’ argument
Because God is a supremely perfect being
he possesses all perfections
 This perfect state includes existence,
which is a perfection in itself. Existence is
a predicate of a perfect being
 Therefore God exists

Objects and predicates
There are some things an object must
have to be that object
 Triangle must have three sides
 Bachelors must be unmarried
 And so God must have existence


It is inconceivable any other way!
What is his argument?
1.
Whatever belongs to the essence of
something cannot be denied of it
2.
God’s essence includes existence;
therefore
3.
Existence must be affirmed by God
Descartes clarification
1.
2.
3.

The argument cannot be applied to
objects affected by time and space.
It can only apply to something that is
perfect
Only God can have absolute perfection –
there cannot be two absolutes
Take THAT, Gaunilo!
Descartes on the existence of
God


To deny the existence of God is as absurd as
saying ‘the existing such and such does not
exist’ (Mackie)
All other arguments to establish the existence
of things – unicorns (Russell), Hobbits
(Maltby(!)) – try to establish the necessary
existence of contingent
objects

Only an absolute perfect being can
have the necessary existence
Quick quiz

Which is correct
TTWNCBC
b) TTWNGCBC
c) TTWNGCBG
a)
Quick quiz

The first of Anslem’s arguments is?
Quick quiz

The second of Anslem’s arguments is?
Quick quiz

What role do triangles play in Descartes’
version argument?
Quick quiz

Why did Anselm say that Gaunilo had
failed to understand him?
Baseline assessment

Analyse the reasoning of the ontological
argument as presented by Anselm, and
explain its purpose.
AO1 – 30 marks

“Gaunilo presents a convincing counter
argument to Anselm”
To what extent do you agree with this
claim
AO2 – 20 marks
Objections - 1
Objections

There are three main objections
 The
definition of God
 The use of existence as a predicate of God
 The possibility of deriving existence from
claims of definition
Definitions of God

Define the God of classical theism

Okay, how do you know that you are right?

What else could God be like?
Aquinas

No certainty that the human mind has the
correct concept of God
 He
is beyond human understanding
 Our mere ideas cannot prove his existence
 Existence of God is not self-evident

Even if we do have an idea it is
confused
‘God is man’s beatitude’

Supreme blessedness or happiness
 We
naturally desire this happiness
 What we desire must be known to us
 Doesn’t mean we know God
To explain more ...
To know that SOMEONE is approaching
 Not the same as knowing that PETER is
approaching
 We know that man desires happiness
 But what is happiness?

 Different
for different people
Aquinas
God is beyond human understanding
 What type of argument is his cosmological
argument?
 What type of argument is the ontological
argument?
 A priori arguments to prove God fail

 Because

we cannot define God
Know him through his work
Aquinas
‘the greatest’
 ‘the most perfect being’

Are these meaningful?
 Are they quantifiable?


Greatness and perfection can
always be added to.
 Remind
you of something?
Would Anselm ever agree?

What is Proslogion?
 Intellectual
argument to prove the existence of
God?
 Prayer to aid faith?
Hume

Twofold objections
Cannot take an idea in your mind, apply
logic to it, and reach a conclusion based on
the external, observable universe.
2. Like Kant existence cannot be treated as a
predicate
1.
Objection 1

We base our lives around what we can
observe rather than rationally prove.
 We
know the sun rises: how do we know that?

We cannot prove anything a priori

So does Hume have a point?
Objection 2

The description of a thing can contain
every possible detail
 To
determine if something exists we must go
BEYOND the description

A thing cannot be ‘defined into existence’
 Assumed
existence
perfection cannot be proof of
A2 essay demands
Scholarly opinion
 Differing views
 Independent thought


But how to actually go about doing it?
PQRS!

P = Point
 Make
your point
 In a form that an inquisitive grandparent
would understand.
 ONE POINT AT A TIME

Deal with it before introducing another one structure
PQRS

Q = Quotation
 Ideally
from the original
 Ideally short and punchy
 Use a term / word / phrase that wouldn’t be
used by an amateur
PQRS

R = Response
 The
main bit of the paragraph
 Show evidence of diversity of views

‘Critics such as Hume have posited that ...’
 Create

links with other parts of the course
Including from AS
PQRS

S = Semi-conclusion
 Make
sure you’ve explained YOUR position in
the light of the careful analysis you’ve just
done

Remember the independent thought requirement
 Make
sure you refer to the specific question
that was asked
Analyse the reasoning of the
OA

PQRS
 Anselm
claims that the logic of his argument
indicates that an atheist cannot be an atheist
without contradicting themselves.
Analyse the reasoning of the
OA

PQRS
 “the
fool ... Understands what he hears ...
although he does not understand it to exist”
Analyse the reasoning of the
OA

PQRS
 What
did Anselm mean?
 Example of understanding a concept without
accepting existence
 Does anyone disagree with him?
 Would this logic and reasoning persuade an
atheist to convert?
Analyse the reasoning of the
OA

PQRS
 What
do you think? Careful of wording in an
AO1 question
 Is the reasoning logical?
 Does Anselm succeed in putting forward a
good argument?
 Remember to refer back to the question!
Objections - 2
The use of existence as a
predicate of God

Key players
 Kant
 Russell
Starter
OBJECT
Snow
Fire
An even number
A bachelor
A duffle coat
A person
God
KEY FEATURE
Kant’s objections
Mainly aimed at Descartes
 The argument claims that existence is a
perfection

 That
existence adds something to the
essence of God
 That it is a predicate
What is a predicate?
Something that adds to the property of a
subject
 Every complete sentence contains a
subject and a predicate

John laughed
 Peter walks the dog
 The audience littered the floor with torn
wrappings and spilled popcorn

Why did Kant NOT think
existence was a predicate?

When we talk about something we
assume it exists.
I
have a coat. It is red
 I have a coat. It exists and it is red.
Existence is assumed
 Saying that the coat exists doesn’t tell us
anything additional about the coat.

Kant’s main objection

A predicate should add to our
understanding of an object/person
Existence does not add
anything to the essence
of God
Sounds odd?
Can we really say that existence does not
add anything to our understanding of an
object?
 Not a property that you can ascribe to a
thing alongside other properties

So ...

... existence is not
a
predicate
 or a perfection (who said it was?)

If we were to describe our concept of God
and then add ‘and he exists’ we would not
have gained any extra knowledge or
deepened our understanding of the
concept of God
Really?
Yes!
 A God that exists might be more useful
than one that doesn’t exist
 But knowing that he exists doesn’t add to
the essence of God

 Which
is what a predicate does
 What are the predicates of God?
So where does that leave the
ontological argument?
Dead in the water, you could say!
 If existence is not a perfection or a
predicate:

 Ontological
argument gives no reason for God
to exist.

What do you think?
Existence as a synthetic
proposition

What is a synthetic proposition?
 Predicate
is not contained in the statement
 More work must be done

Jane is a spinster
Existence as a synthetic
proposition

God cannot be placed in a separate
category to everything else
 What

does Anselm say about this?
Gives a synthetic proposition the status of
an analytical proposition
 Assertion
is contained within the definition
All spinsters are unmarried
 A square is a four-sided figure with equal
sides

Existence as a synthetic
proposition

It is always possible to contradict
existence as a property of a thing
 Therefore
they are synthetic propositions
To sum up (Kant)
Existence is not a predicate
 Existence is not a perfection
 Existence does not add to our understanding
of an object
 Anselm tries to turn a synthetic proposition
into an analytical one

The meaning of ‘exist’ - Russell

If existence were a predicate you
would get the following syllogism
 Men
exist in the world
 Santa Claus is a man
 Therefore Santa Claus exists
Syllogism – deductive
argument moving from the
general to the specific
Valid ...
but ...
Why is it wrong?

Men exist in the world
Misuse of this word

Santa Claus is a man

Therefore Santa Claus exists
Santa is fictional – belongs to a separate
category to the men in the first proposition
So what IS existence

According to Russell
 Not
a property of things, but the idea of those
things
Russell’s example
We have the idea of what the
word ‘dragons’ means
Of all the things that exist a
dragon is not one of them

‘Dragons do not exist’

‘A cow is a quadruped with udders etc’
The fact that a cow exists is an extension
to the description, not part of the
description
Intention and extension
Puts the ontological argument in different
terms
 Intention of a phrase

 The
description arrived at through labelling
and defining something

TTWNGCBC
 The
totality of everything that can be
conceived my the human mind about God

But does it have an extension (can I add to it)?
Intention and extension

TTWNGCBC
 Totality
of ideas
 But no evidence to prove the existence
To sum up (Russell)
Existence cannot be a predicate
 Existence is not a property of things, but
the idea of things
 Russell supports Anselm’s claim that God
is the greatest thing we can think of
 Does not support Anselm’s belief that
this proves God’s existence

First and second order
predicates
Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)
 First order predicates

 Apply
direction to objects
John’s horses are brown
 All cats are mammals

 Provide
information about the relation of two
concepts

Whatever falls under the concept of a cat
is a mammal
First and second order
predicates

Second order predicates
 Apply
to first order predicates and not
to the object itself
Mammals exist
 Cats exist

 Not
about any particular mammal or cat but
about the concepts of mammals and cats
And God?

Existence is not a first-order predicate
 Does

not tell us about the nature of something
Existence is not a second-order predicate
 Does
not add to our understanding of the
concept

Therefore existence cannot be used as
a predicate to prove the existence of
God.
Objections - 3
Objections based on the possibility
of deriving existence claims from
definition

Key players
 J.L.
Mackie
 Elisabeth
 Brian
Anscombe
Davies
J.L. Mackie
Atheist is NOT contradicting himself
 Anselm is making a mistake by claiming
existence is a predicate of greatness

 TTWNGCBC
certainly suggests this
 In order to be maximally great the being must
exist in order to meet the terms of its definition

Mackie’s claim is that just because we can
think of something doesn’t mean it exists
Elisabeth Anscombe
Proslogion is NOT an ontological
argument
 It never states that existence is a predicate

 Where
did this idea come from if it wasn’t from
Anselm?

Where does this leave Mackie?
 (Just
because we can think of something
doesn’t mean it exists)
Elisabeth Anscombe

1.
2 translations of Proslogion
‘And surely, that than which no greater can be
conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if
it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to
exist in reality also, which is greater.’ Implies existence
is a predicate of
greatness
2.
‘And surely, that than which no greater can be
conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if
it is only in the mind, what is greater Implies that
something is better
can be thought to be in reality as well.’ if it exists in the
mind and reality
Brian Davies
Criticises the use of the word ‘is’
 “A pixie is a little man with pointed ears.
Therefore, there actually exists a pixie”
 Does a pixie have to exist in order to have
pointed ears?
 How does this relate to Anselm’s
argument?

Brian Davies

Use of the word ‘is’
1.
Definition:
A queen is a female monarch
Says nothing about existence –
says nothing about an existent
queen
2.
Does explain
what a queen is
To explain that there actually is something:
There is such a thing as a vampire
Also says nothing about existence
However it does
implicitly suppose its
existence
Brian Davies
Norman Malcolm argues for a God with
necessary existence
 His error, according to Davies

 Goes
from definition of God as a being with
necessary existence
 To explain that there IS a being with
necessary existence
Brian Davies

To sum up ...
 The
ontological argument helps with a
definition of God – TTWNGCBC
 It doesn’t prove that the being with this
definition exists
Modern versions
Key players

Norman Malcolm (1911-1990)

Alvin Plantinga (1932-)

Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000)
Norman Malcolm
Disagrees with objections of Russell and
Davies
 Considers it a logical argument to prove
existence of God

Norman Malcolm

Could not support Anselm’s first argument
 Not

valid as existence is not a characteristic
Supported Anselm’s second argument
 Concept
of God is concept of a being whose
existence is necessary
 It is not possible to think of a being that
necessarily exists, not existing
 Therefore, Malcolm argues, God must exist
Norman Malcolm


Argues that the only reason why a greatestconceivable being wouldn’t exist would be
because the concept named something whose
existence was impossible.
Anselm is talking about an impossible God or a
necessary being

Therefore if God is possible then God exists
Alvin Plantinga

Developed the modal ontological
argument

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRq
HZRP68
Possible worlds
Plantinga developed the philosophical
notion of possible worlds
 In each there will be many differences

 The
possibilities are infinite
Maximal greatness & maximal
existence
There is a possible world, W, in which
there exists a being of ‘maximal greatness’
 A being has maximal greatness only if it
exists in every possible world


So, is he talking about God?
Maximal greatness & maximal
existence
Just says that a maximally great being has
to be present in every possible world
 Has not defined what that being is

 Does
not say it is the God of classical theism
Maximal greatness & maximal
existence

Introduces the concept of maximal
excellence
 Maximal
greatness entails maximal
excellence
 Maximal excellence entails omnipotence,
omniscience, and moral perfection
Maximal greatness & maximal
existence

Therefore …
 There
is a possible world in which there is a
being that is maximally great
 If maximally great, this being exists in our
world
 This being has maximal excellence, as this is
entailed within maximal greatness
 This means that there is an ‘omnis’
and morally perfect being in our world
 Therefore there IS a God
Maximal greatness & maximal
existence
So can we say for certain that God
exists?
 Davies would say ‘no’

 Even
if maximal excellence is possible it does
not follow that such a being exists
 God is possible but not actual
Plantinga and Gaunilo

Can you remember what Plantinga said in
defence of Anselm?
 Islands
are contingent
 God is eternal
 Islands do not have ‘intrinsic maximum’
What does he have to say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVc
WFrGQ&noredirect=1
Charles Hartshorne

Whether existence is a property
Argues that one aspect of Anselm’s
argument is ignored
 Existence is used differently in his two
arguments
 Existence is not always a property but
that doesn’t mean it never is

Charles Hartshorne

God as a necessary being
 Existence
IS a property
 If he is necessary he is greater than
contingent beings
 If to have necessary existence means he
must always exist it is logically impossible
for him not to exist
 Therefore God exists
And so …

… we reach the end of the ontological argument


Next … the issues arising
 Does
it have value for the non-believer?
 Does it successfully challenge belief in God?
 How successful is the argument as proof of God’s
existence
 Would the success or failure of this argument have
any significance for faith?
Relationship between
faith and reason
Is the OA helpful?

Does it do anything other than helping to
define God?
 TTWNGCBC
Does this definition convince atheists or
agnostics of the existence of God?
 What does belief in God depend on?

Starter – Faith versus Reason

Which of the statements are dependent on
faith and which depend on reason
Not helpful to faith
It is possible to think of a non-existent
God. – argument against OA
 How does Gaunilo demonstrate this?

A
fool CAN have an understanding of God
even if he doesn’t exist – the lost island
Helpful to faith

Anselm – what is the purpose of his
argument from HIS point of view
 To
take people beyond the definition of the
word ‘God’ to knowledge of God, himself.

Does he succeed in doing this?

If he does then the OA IS helpful to faith
Faith, reason, and the OA
Write a definition of faith and a definition of
reason
 Does the OA raise valid reasons for
believing in God?
 Is faith grounded in reason or is reason
governed by faith?

Anselm’s view

They aid each other in understanding God
 Reason
alone can lead to error
 Must be supported by faith
 Greater understanding can only be achieved
through faith
Anselm’s view

“Nor do I seek to understand so that I can
believe (intelligere ut credam), but rather I
believe so that I can understand (credo ut
intelligam). For I believe this too, that
‘unless I believe I shall not understand’”
Proslogion 1
Your view

Does a definition of God depend more on
faith than understanding of the word?
Why?
The appeal of the OA

Anselm already believes in God
 Not
providing a logical argument to convince
people

However it DOES appeal to logic and
reason
“I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco, and was going back
with it, along Trinity Lane, when I suddenly threw it up in the
air and exclaimed: “Great God in Boots! – the ontological
argument is sound!”
Russell
The appeal of the OA
Russell: through logical reasoning it
appears that a being with necessary
existence MUST exist
 So why is he against the argument?

 When
considering the argument further we
realise that having the definition does not
make God exist
So when IS it helpful?

A valid argument that God’s existence is
necessary
 If
a triangle must have three sides, then God
must exist
 Helps develop a believer’s understanding of
God
 Strengthen their belief
 Further reason to praise God
Limited significance to believer

Successful
 Only
provides an alternative way of confirming
faith


Why only an ‘alternative
Fails
 Does

nothing to take away faith
Why not?
Agnostics and atheists
Theoretically God is possible (by definition)
 Having the concept does not make him a
reality for agnostics and atheists
 Some claim it only works for existing
believers and will not persuade nonbelievers that God exists

Agnostics and atheists

Why did Kant and Russell believe it
is not a good argument?

Question validity of statements such as:
 “God
must exist because he is a supremely
perfect being”

OA is a misleading argument
Has existing faith
Have no existing faith
The Enlightenment

Religious belief must be supported by
reason for it to be viewed as rational

Could this be a reason for renewed
interest in the OA from Kant/Hume
onwards?
Fideism
Remember this?
 “exclusive or basic reliance upon faith
alone”
 A fideist is someone who “urges reliance
on faith rather than reason in matters
philosophical and religious” - Plantinga

Faith may be the only proof
Karl Barth (1886-1968)
 Denied the possibility of attaining any
knowledge of God through the use of
reason
 Fides Quaerens Intellectu (Faith Seeking
Understanding)
 Supports view that Anselm didn’t
intend to prove the existence of God

Faith may be the only proof

TWNGCBC
 Not
the start of an argument
 A description by a believer of what is
understood about God within the limits of the
human mind

If we had the mental capacity to
understand God and prove his
existence faith would not be necessary
Faith may be the only proof

Anselm’s 2nd argument
A


statement of faith
Without God then humans and the world in which
they live would not exist
Cannot apply these comments to
Descartes version of the OA
 Descartes
WAS seeking to present an
argument using reason to prove the existence
of God
What would Descartes say?

Attempting to give a logical argument

Required proof of God to justify his
rationalistic approach to knowledge and
certainty
Søren Kierkegaard
1813-1855
 Misconceived and ridiculous to attempt to
use reason to determine existence of God
 “For the fool says in his heart that there is
no God, but he who says in his heart or to
others: just wait a little and I shall
demonstrate it …What a superb
theme for crazy comedy”

Build an essay

“The ontological argument is a statement
of faith and not reason”
To what extent do you agree with this
statement?
The OA and faith
Two main concerns
1.
Can the OA weaken faith?
2.
The failure of the argument to strengthen
faith.
Could the OA weaken faith?

If your belief is based on belief rather than
proven fact then could the OA be
damaging to faith?
 God
could be proven without a shadow of a
doubt
 Faith is redundant
 Re-evaluation of relationship between God
and humans
Anti-realism

A theory of truth

The truth or falsity of a statement does not
depend on whether it corresponds to the
objective reality it describes
 It corresponds to the situation as a person
understands it

Eh????
Anti-realism

A theory of truth

The truth or falsity of a statement does not on
whether it corresponds to the objective reality
it describes
 It corresponds to the situation as a person
understands it

Eh????
Anti-realism and God

Does God exist?
 Depends:
do you understand there to be such
a being?
 Does NOT depend on whether there is or is
not an objectively existing omnipotent being

Religious believers are totally justified in
saying that he exists
Anti-realism and God

Summing up anti-realism and the OA
 Talk
of God makes sense to those who
already believe
 Talk of God for non-believers makes no sense

Shows that God is not a thing to be
verified empirically, but an idea that has
value and meaning within a religious
community
Implication for the OA

IF you are religious:
 God
must exist by definition
 Why?
Because they understand him to exist
 Merely to believe in God guarantees that God
exists

Iris Murdoch
OA may not objective proof for the
existence of God
 Does have great value for a believer
 Shows that it is rational to hold such
beliefs
 Teaches us to think about our own
meta-cognition

 Teaches
us to think about how we think
Iris Murdoch
The OA has anti-realist meaning
 Meaningful to the individual or group who
understand what the definition of God
means

 Rugby

players understand the off-side
Vardy claims that this is what Anselm
intended it to be
To sum up

If the statement TTWNGCBC is said
prayerfully to God by a religious believer:
 By

definition God exists
Written by a believer as a prayer
 Therefore

it is successful
However it cannot tell us whether this
definition of God corresponds to any
objective reality beyond the mind of the
believer
Failure to strengthen faith
Does not appear to convert an atheist
 Dawkins

 It
has no significance for faith
 Picks up on points made by Douglas Gasking
Possible to believe in a being more powerful than
one with necessary existence – which does not
exist and yet created everything
 Different concepts of TTWNGCBC

Failure to strengthen faith

Dawkins
 Gasking
doesn’t prove that God does not
exist
 In the same way, neither does Anselm prove
that he does
To conclude

Helps to establish what the monotheistic
religions say about God
 Establishes
that he is ‘omni’, transcendent,
and the summary of all perfection
Shows that the relationship between God
and humans is more dependent on faith
 Aid to those who already have faith
 Anselm ‘faith seeking understanding’

THE END