arg reason

• Anselm's Ontological Argument


  uses reductio ad absurdum reasoning – attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction

  “Fools” understand the definition of God - that than which nothing greater can be conceived but they create a logical contradiction saying that TTWNGCBC only exists in intellectu. To be “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” it must exist in re

  Therefore, existing in re is part of the definition of God

  • “God exists” is an analytic statement. It is true by definition.
• Russell 


  uses the statement 'The King of France is bald' - which is not true because as of the present day we do not have a King of France

  however, it would still not be true to say that 'The King of France is not bald' because he still does not exits

  • the way we apply predicates is not enough/ sufficient reason to show that something exists, especially when we start to apply these predicates to something whose existence we are not certain of - so the normal rules of linguistic logic does not apply - links to religious language 2
• Aquinas - criticism of the OA

  "God exists" is not an analytic statement - doesn't lead to a contradiction - we can simply accept that God does not exist
• Descartes - O.A


  God = supremely perfect

  • all his attributes are perfect - his existence is perfection
  • therefore the characteristics of God cannot be separated from his existence - he lacks nothing - so he must exist
• support for existence being predicate

  Norman Malcom - neccessay existence is predicate

  • it is a characteristic that distinguishes humans from God, allowing us to identify him
  • just like his other attributes are predicate - eg omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent - links to nature of God