OCR ↗︎
Philosophy ↗︎
Question preparation ↓

AO1: Anselm’s ontological argument

Anselm’s ontological argument is a purely a priori argument based on the concept of God.
It is deductive, aiming to prove God exists with necessity.
Anselm uses the example of a painter who first has an idea in their mind before creating it in reality.
This shows the difference between existing in the mind and existing in reality.
He refers to Psalm 14:1, where the atheist denies God.
Even the atheist has an idea of God in their mind.
In Proslogion 2, Anselm argues:
P1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than only in the mind.
P3. God exists in the mind.
C1. Therefore, God exists in reality.
If God existed only in the mind, we could imagine something greater: God existing in reality.
So, God must exist in reality.
In Proslogion 3, Anselm argues that a necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
A necessary being cannot fail to exist.
So, God, as the greatest being, must exist necessarily.

AO2: Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ objection

Gaunilo argues that Anselm’s logic leads to absurd results.
If we apply it to the greatest possible island, then it must exist.
This would apply to anything, meaning reality would be ‘overloaded’ with perfect versions of everything.
So, Gaunilo claims the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
He is rejecting the argument’s deductive validity.

Counter

However, Anselm replies that the argument only works for God.
Descartes supports this by saying God’s essence includes necessary existence.
An island is contingent, as it depends on water to exist.
So, it can fail to exist.
No matter how perfect an island is, it is still contingent.
The argument therefore does not apply to it.

Evaluation

This reply succeeds because a priori reasoning only works for necessary beings.
It analyses definitions rather than checking reality.
Contingent things depend on external conditions, so their existence cannot be known a priori.
For example, I can know a perfect island needs water, but not whether that water exists.
So I cannot prove a contingent thing exists through reason alone.
But a necessary being has no external conditions.
So, if its concept is coherent, it must exist.
There is a clear difference between God and islands.
Gaunilo’s objection fails because it applies the argument where it does not belong.

AO2: Gaunilo’s critique that God is beyond our understanding

Gaunilo objects to P3, the claim that God is in our understanding.
He argues that God is beyond human understanding.
If so, we cannot have the idea of God needed for Anselm’s argument.
So, Anselm cannot move from God being in the mind to God existing in reality.

Counter

Anselm replies with the example of the sun.
We cannot look at it directly, but we can still see by its light.
In the same way, we may not understand God fully, but we can still grasp that God is the greatest conceivable being.
We can understand the idea of a highest point in a scale of greatness.
That is enough for the argument to work.

Evaluation

This objection fails because Gaunilo misrepresents Anselm’s claim.
Anselm does not mean we fully understand God, only that we can think about the idea of God.
So, Gaunilo attacks a stronger claim than Anselm makes.
The argument only needs a basic concept of maximal greatness, not full knowledge of God’s nature.
There is a clear difference between knowing what God is and knowing that God is the greatest being.
Anselm relies only on the second.
Also, this objection does not affect Anselm’s second version of the argument.
So it does not defeat the overall argument.

AO2: Kant’s 2nd critique: existence is not a predicate

The ontological argument claims that denying God’s existence is incoherent, since God is defined as a maximally great being.
Kant argues this misunderstands existence by treating it as a predicate, a property of a thing.
He uses the example of 100 coins: there is no conceptual difference between 100 coins in reality and 100 coins in the mind.
If existence were a predicate, real coins would have an extra quality and be conceptually different.
But they are not.
So, existence is not a predicate.
This challenges the idea that existence makes something greater.

Counter:

However, Descartes does not rely on treating existence as a predicate, but on intuition.
We grasp that God is inseparable from existence, like a triangle is inseparable from three sides.
So Kant’s criticism misses Descartes’ argument.
Malcolm also defends Anselm.
Kant is right about contingent existence, since contingent things depend on something else.
But a necessary being contains the reason for its existence within itself.
So, necessary existence can be a defining quality in a way contingent existence is not.

Evaluation:

So, both Anselm and Descartes’ approaches succeed against Kant’s criticism.
Kant makes the same mistake as Gaunilo, thinking an argument for a necessary being could be undermined by showing it fails when applied to contingent things like coins.

AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence

Gaunilo argued that necessity in thought does not give necessity in reality.
Kant develops this by focusing on necessity itself.
A triangle must have three sides, but only if it exists.
In the same way, saying God necessarily exists only shows that if God exists, then God exists necessarily.
So, necessity can be part of the concept without proving real existence.
If God exists, denying necessity is contradictory.
But if God does not exist, then necessity does not apply.

Counter:

Malcolm responds that Kant’s criticism is incoherent because a necessary being must exist.
If God is a necessary being, then God must exist.

Evaluation

Hick argues that Malcolm confuses different types of necessity.
Calling God non-contingent only means God would be self-explaining and non-dependent (aseity).
This is not logical necessity.
It does not mean God must exist, only how God would exist if real.
The argument fails to show that God’s non-existence is contradictory.
It only shows that if God exists, God exists in a special way.
So, Kant’s development of Gaunilo’s point is correct: necessity in a concept does not prove actual existence.

Question preparation

Revision paragraphs:

AO1: Anselm’s ontological argument
AO2: Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ objection
AO2: Gaunilo’s critique that God is beyond our understanding
AO2: Kant’s 2nd critique: existence is not a predicate
AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence

Question types:

Question can focus on any of the following:

Anselm (a priori argument based on reason)
Gaunilo
Kant

Can God’s existence be proven a priori? [40]

AO1: Anselm’s ontological argument
AO2: Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ objection
AO2: Kant’s 2nd critique: existence is not a predicate
AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence

Questions focused on Gaunilo:

Short explanation of Anselm’s argument (AO1 is focused on Gaunilo)
AO2: Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ objection
AO2: Gaunilo’s critique that God is beyond our understanding
AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence
- Kant can work so long as the relevance to Gaunilo is brought out:
- Kant develops Gaunilo’s underlying idea, that there’s a difference between necessity in the mind and necessity in reality. Gaunilo’s island failed because it tested the ontological argument’s logic through application to a contingent thing, but here Kant makes a better application of Gaunilo’s insight to a case of necessity (a triangle having three sides) to critique Anselm.

Questions focused on Kant’s criticisms

This is a hard one but it can be fine to start with a bit of Anselm vs Gaunilo – so long as they are introduced and framed in relation to Kant:
Anselm is what Kant is going to crificise – and Gaunilo’s critique contains the key premise Kant develops (the distinction between necessity in the mind and necessity in reality), though Gaunilo chooses a poor example (of a contingent thing – the island) which Kant himself mistakenly followed in his 2nd critique (with contingent coins) but developed more successfully in his 1st critique (with the necessity of a triangle having 3 sides).
So:
Anselm’s argument (framed as what Kant attacks), then Gaunilo’s island (noting the key premise Kant later develops, but then explaining why it fails due to going in the wrong direction with the island which is contingent.
AO2: Kant’s 2nd critique: existence is not a predicate
- Ends up making the same mistake as Gaunilo – applying to a contingent thing.
AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence
- Finally applies Gaunilo’s idea successfully to a case of necessity.

Can existence be treated as a predicate? [40]

Introduction:
A predicate is a word that describes a subject. The question of whether existence could be a predicate is central to the ontological argument for God’s existence. Anselm is accused of having faulty reasoning regarding existence being a predicate.
Gaunilo’s idea that Kant developed was that there’s a difference between necessity in the mind, and necessity in reality.
Kant developed that by:
- In his 2nd critique, arguing that existence cannot be a predicate of a thing that necessitates its existence in reality.
- In his 1st critique, arguing that even if necessary existence somehow were a predicate, that would not imply actual existence.

So:
Anselm vs Gaunilo (minor detail for both) – framed for their relevance to Kant.
AO2: Kant’s 2nd critique: existence is not a predicate
AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence
- Intro sentence: Here, Kant argues that even if necessary existence could be treated as a predicate, that does not have the implications Anselm thought it did. I.e., it cannot show that God actually does exist.

Example of conclusion: Necessary existence is indeed a predicate, as Malcolm argued – however it being a predicate doesn’t have the logical significance Anselm & Malcolm thought it did – because it cannot establish God’s actual existence.

Are Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument the most effective? [40]

AO1: Anselm’s ontological argument (minor – it’s not the focus)
AO2: Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ objection
- This fails
AO2: Kant’s 2nd critique: existence is not a predicate
- This looks more promising than Gaunilo, but Malcolm shows it fails
AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence
- This is the most successful critique, and shows Gaunilo had the right insight but it needed developing through proper application to necessity by Kant and then Hick’s modern distinctions between types of necessity.

LOA: Kant & Hick have the most effective criticism

OR: if you want to make it easier for yourself, do both of Gaunilo’s AO2 sections, and then Kant’s existence is not a predicate section – and argue all the critiques fail, so that Gaunilo is not the most effective because none are effective.

Weirdly worded questions:

Whether a priori or a posteriori is the more successful type of argument [40]
Or: Whether God’s existence best justified a posteriori / a priori [40]

This question requires that you judge whether the ontological argument (a priori) is better or worse than a posteriori arguments (teleo/cosmo).
You must do the ontological argument, and then at least one of teleo or cosmo – or both.
You will then have judged whether:
They all succeed (So ontological better – because it tries to prove God’s existence for deductively certain – whereas cosmo/teleo are inductive arguments trying to show the evidence supports belief – but doesn’t prove it for certain).
One type fails and the other succeeds (so the other type is more successful/convincing).
They all fail (equally unsuccessful/unconvincing).

I’d choose these:

AO1: Anselm (short), AO2: Kant (either of Kant’s critiques will do)
- Kant is more of an upgraded critique than Gaunilo to be frank so an essay which leaves our Gaunilo feels more comprehensive than one which leaves out Kant.
AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
- This is a nice one for this purpose because it covers a variety of design arguments and how they interact with the evolution issue, and then more contemporary issues.
AO1: Aquinas’ 3rd way (short), AO2: The fallacy of composition
- Fallacy of composition targets all versions of the cosmological argument and touches on infinite regress issues and the universe needing no cause – so it’s the best for capturing the overall issues.
Or: AO2: The Im/possibility of a necessary being
- This critique of a necessary being works very well because it attempts to attack both cosmological and ontological – but Copleston replies that it only undermines the ontological argument, not the cosmological, making the cosmological seem stronger. However in the end I evaluate that Hume succeeds, showing all varieties of argument to equally fail (though you could evaluate differently if desired).

This question would be answered best if you could highlight how the criticisms of each especially target their a priori or a posteriori nature.
E.g., Kant shows the difficulty of proving existence through definition – which attacks a priori demonstrations of existence.
E.g., most criticisms of the design and cosmological arguments exploit its inductive a posteriori nature – by showing the evidence they point to could be explained by alternative conclusions (evolution, or the universe having no cause, or some scientific cause like necessary matter).