OA: Faith and Reason
What difference does the argument
make
- to believers
Organise the statements
according to which side
- to non-believers
they provide support for
Which are the more
convincing ones?
How do you respond to the
opposite arguments?
OA Quiz Time
The 2 parts of Anselm’s OA are..
a. God as TTWNGCBC is less great than God
as TTWNGCBC and who exists, so by
reductio, first definition of God is
impossible, so God exists
b. The Fool does not recognise that the God
that he conceives of, must exist
c. God as TTWNGCBC must exist since it is
impossible to conceive of God as not
existing.
d. God as TTWNGCBC is impossible to
conceive of, therefore God cannot exist in
our minds, but only in reality
e. God is TTWNGCBC because he has all
perfections and existence is a perfection,
so he must exist
Gaunilo’s challenge was that…
a. The concept of a perfect being
is incoherent
b. If God as a perfect being exists,
therefore an island as a perfect
island must exist
c. If God by definition exists,
then other things by definition
exist eg perfect islands
d. You cannot go from a
definition to a claim of
existence
e. There is no reason to think
that the things we conceive of
must, a priori, exist
Descartes examples of a mountain
/valley was meant to show that…
a. you can reject both and say
that they, like God, don’t exist
b. you can’t have the concept of
God without assuming his
existence
c. If you assume one of God’s
qualities eg omnipotence, you
have to assume the others eg
omniscience, necessary
existence
d. Necessary existence is part of
the definition of God, like the
valley is part of the definition of
a mountain
e. What goes up must come down
Hume thought that..
a. You cannot derive a claim about
existence from a definition
b. Descartes was correct in rejecting
triangles with their three sides
c. You cannot overcome the
analytic/synthetic distinction
d. God’s existence could be proved by
a priori thinking
e. “God exists” is not analytic
because it can be contradicted
Kant’s example to prove that existence
was not a predicate was..
a. An imaginary dog is no different
from a dead dog
b. 100 real thalers in your pocket is
no different from 100 possible
thalers in your mind
c. You can’t take away existence from
something and say it lacks
something
d. Triangles can be rejected together
with their three sides
e. The grammatical point that “is” in
a sentence does not add anything
to the subject being described
Russell argued that existence is not a
predicate, so the OA fails, because..
a. Subject-predicate sentences in fact do
not contain a subject, so x>y argument
fails
b. Empty terms/ negative existentials are
in fact descriptions which may be
shown as true or false, so OA depends
on empirical evidence
c. The name “God” really just stands for a
description, so the OA is not claiming
anything about any subject
d. The name “God” just stands for a
description, so the OA is meaningless
e. The OA is convincing for its rationality,
as Russell realised when returning
from the tobacco shop.
Frege’s point was that…
a. Descriptions such as the
present King of France does
not exist are meaningless, so
God is too
b. Existence applies to objects in
the same way as numbers
apply to concepts
c. A horse cannot be counted
d. Existence applies to the
concept as a whole, as a first
order predicate
e. Existence is simply the
assertion that there is one
numerical instantiation of the
concept
Malcolm tries to prove that
a. God necessarily exists because if he
doesn’t nothing could make him exist
b. God necessarily exists because it is part
of the concept of God that he has
necessary existence
c. God necessarily exists because either
his existence is necessary or impossible,
but it is not impossible
d. God necessarily exists because his nonexistence is incoherent
e. God necessarily exists because by
definition God is the maximal existent
being
Plantinga’s proof can be challenged
because…
a. No atheist will accept that the idea
of a God is even possible
b. It is incoherent to assume the
presence of a necessary being
c. You can’t compare a God who is
greater because he exists with one
that doesn’t – as there is nothing
to compare
d. Analytic synthetic distinction must
be maintained
e. You can reject the idea of a
possible God and his necessary
existence like rejecting a triangle
and its three sides
Exam Questions