Philosophy of Religion

•Teleological or Design Argument

•Questions so far:

•Is divine activity the best explanation for the existence of the universe, life and moral agents?

•How are natural and moral evils reconciled with the traditional conception of God?

•Cosmological Argument
•Questions so far:

•Does the cosmological argument show that actual infinities cannot exist?
•Does it show that the universe must have had a first cause or explanation?
•Ambiguously supported by science.
•If successful, it shows that a first cause is a necessary thing IF there are contingent beings. It
does not necessarily show that the first cause is IN ITSELF necessary.

Both arguments have an empirical basis. They ask us to look at features of our universe,
and make inferences based upon them.

But, you can also see that there is a jump up in level of generality, attention in the first
being paid to particular entities and their features, relying on our knowledge of
biological organisms. The cosmological argument widens focus, looking at a more
general feature of all things in the universe living or dead: Their contingency
(dependence on other things for existence). Still, both arguments are empirical in this
way. They attempt to account for observed features of objects in our world.
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument is
Anselm of different. It does not look at the
Canterbury features of natural objects in the
world

Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as much as
You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now Anselm’s argument:
we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or can it be that a
thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God"?

But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-which-
nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his Dramatic Reading
mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for something to
exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that something actually exists. Anyone?
                   Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a picture in
his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it.

However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it
exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-
which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears
it, and whatever is understood is in the mind.

              And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought 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.

If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-

which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is
impossible.

Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought

exists both in the mind and in reality.
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument is
different. It does not look at the
features of natural objects in the
What is the ‘object’ of analysis
in this passage? What am I
asking you to concentrate upon
and dissect?
Anselm of
Canterbury
world
Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as
much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe
You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be
thought. Or can it be that a thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his
heart, there is no God"?
But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-
which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he
understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is
one thing for something to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that
something actually exists.
                   Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a
picture in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet
executed it.
However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands
that it exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that
something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he
understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind.
              And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought 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.
If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same
that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-
thought. But this is impossible.
Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-
thought exists both in the mind and in reality.
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

What is the ‘object’ of analysis
in this passage? What am I
asking you to concentrate upon
and dissect?
Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I may understand, as
much as You see fit, that You exist as we believe You exist, and that You are what we believe
You to be. Now we believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be
thought. Or can it be that a thing of such nature does not exist, since "the fool has said in his
heart, there is no God"?
But surely, when this same fool hears what I am speaking about, namely, "something-than-
which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he understands what he hears, and what he
understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is
one thing for something to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that
something actually exists.

                   Thus, when the painter plans beforehand what he's going to execute, he has a
picture in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet
executed it.

However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands
that it exists because he has now made it. Even the fool, then, is forced to agree that
something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind, since he
understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind.

              And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought 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.

If then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same

that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-
thought. But this is impossible.

Anselm of Therefore, there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-

thought exists both in the mind and in reality.
Canterbury
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

“That than which none greater can be

I want you to examine a concept,
that is undoubtedly in your mind.
Upon analysis of the concept, I
think you can draw an existential
conclusion. What is the concept I
focus on?
conceived.” or “Something than which
none greater can be conceived.”
Reconstructing this argument, using that concept,
we can present Anselm’s reasoning as a sort of
Socratic conversation between St. Anselm and “the
fool” of Psalms 14 and 53.

The fool says in his heart,

      "There is no God."
       They are corrupt, and their ways are
vile;
       there is no one who does good.

Anselm of
Canterbury
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

Mr. Fool, you claim that God does not

exist. Now, I assume you know what
you are saying, know what you are
talking about? You know what the word
“God” refers to or at the very least, what
it means?

Why yes. Of course. I mean to say that

there is no being that created the
universe, is all good, all knowing, all
powerful. That is the meaning of the
concept ‘God’ isn’t it? What could be
plainer?

Just as I know what I’m talking about

when I deny the existence of Santa. I
have in mind a definite description of
the entity.
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have. Oh, I see.
Gotcha.
By no means do I disagree, but I just
Where ya’
want to make sure you have adequately
goin’ with
considered all aspects of the concept,
this Anselm?
that you have a complete grasp of it.
Will you allow me to probe?

Be my guest.

Would you agree that God, if he exists, is the maximally

great being? Whatever else he might be, he should be
‘that–than-which-none-greater-can-be-conceived.’ For,
unless he had this characteristic, he would not be the
maximally great being. Hence, speaking paradoxically, he
would be something other than God.

If you could conceive of something

greater, then that something, whatever
else it might be, would be greater than
the first purported maximally great
Why?
being. By definition IT would be God,
not the first.
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.
Just making sure you do understand
what you mean by saying “God does not
exist. That’s all. Now, you do agree that Yes. I should think
the word “God” does refer to or mean that is obvious.
“that than which none greater can be
conceived.”?

Yes. Yes. But can we

abbreviate that phrase?
Let’s refer to it as the TTW?

Done. So, by simple

substitution of terms, you are
saying “TTW does not exist,”
correct?
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.
Now, Mr. Atheist, concentrate on that
conception of God you have in mind when you
say “God does not exist.” Is it accurate to say
that you believe you accurately conceive of God
and that you also claim nothing in reality
corresponds to that concept or idea in your
head?

Of course. What else could I

mean? I have this idea in
mind, of the maximally
great being, and claim there
is nothing in reality that
corresponds to it.

Yes, but is that a conception than

which none greater can be
conceived? Can’t you conceive of a
greater situation? What do you mean?
You’re losing me.
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.
Well, just think of what you are claiming as one
of two possible situations. You claim the Well, yes of course,
situation is that you have this conception in your but it is not what is
mind, of the TTW, and that there is nothing out actually the case.
there in reality that corresponds to it. Remember, That’s my point.
like the Santa example you gave me? Isn’t that
what you take the real situation to be like?

Yes.
So, isn’t there another possible
situation, where you have that
conception of TTW in your mind, and
there IS something out there in reality
that corresponds to it? Just like the
situation that would be the case if
there really was a jolly elf who
delivered gifts on December 24-25
each year. You do admit that God’s
existing at the same time you are
conceiving of him, is a possible
situation, right?
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.
Well, hold on a minute Clyde. If you do admit why do I feel
these two possible situations, you do admit that like I’m
you can conceive of them both. Am I right? being
trapped?
Yes. Of course, and don’t
call me Clyde.

So you admit the two situations,

and that you can conceive them
both. I have a simple question: Of Er..Um..,
the two situations, which is greater, well, it does
the first or the second? Is it the
situation where you have the idea
sure seem
of God, and there is nothing in like…
reality that corresponds to it; or is
it the second situation where you
have the idea of God and there IS
something in reality that
corresponds to it? Which is
greater?
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.
Yep.
Don’t you see? In order to conceive of
God correctly, you must make use of this
second conception: the conception of a
maximally great being that exists.
Otherwise it is not a maximally great
being you are thinking of. It is not the
greatest possible situation, as it were.

So, you are saying that in order for me to

conceive of God correctly I have to
conceive of him as the TTW, and hence as
something that exists, because existence
lends more greatness than non-existence?
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.
So, in order to properly conceive of God
as not existing, you must first conceive of
him as existing.

So, in reality I am conceiving of God as

existing at the very same time I am
thinking of him as not existing?

Yes. Which is a plainly incoherent thought,

contradictory, is it not? And that incoherence can be
traced back to the initial assumption, that one can
conceive of TTW or God as not existing. So, in reality,
you have just shown that the sentence “God does not
exist” is not only false, but necessarily false, as is any
other self-contradictory statement. So, it follows that
God exists. You cannot coherently deny this, no more
than you can coherently deny triangles have three
sides. Just as three-sidedness is essential or necessary
to triangularity, so too is existence essential or
necessary to God. So he exists, and necessarily exists.
Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

Well, I must say you have given me real

cause to reconsider my position..but..

And so, I may claim the

crown of victory, having
vanquished my foe with
rapier-like logic!
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

Not so Fast Saint

Anselm!
And you, Mr. Fool, do
not be so quick to admit
defeat.

Gaunilon of Marmoutiers
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

Gaunilon believes he can show there is

something suspect in Anselm’s argument.
If you admit it works in one case, it seems
you have to admit it works in other cases.
This leads to some absurd results.

Gaunilon of Marmoutiers
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

Try to deny that the island than which none greater can
be conceived exists.

If you properly conceive of this island, do you not

have to conceive of it as existing?
If so, do you not have to conceive of it as existing in
order to deny its existence?
So, by parity of reasoning, it seems Anselm can get
the fool to admit the island TTW exists!
So what are we waiting for? Let’s go find it. (And
the Steak TTW, and the Beer TTW, the spouse TTW,
the job TTW..etc.
Gaunilon of Marmoutiers
 Philosophy of Religion
The Ontological Argument looks at
and analyzes the the logical
features or implications of a
concept or idea we have.

We understand that-than-which-nothing-worse-can-be-conceived, and what

is understood exists in the mind. Thus, since we understand that-than-which-
nothing-worse-can-be-conceived, it exists in the mind. If that-than-which-
nothing-worse-can-be-conceived exists only in the mind, however, then it can
be thought to exist in reality also, which is clearly worse. Therefore, if that-
Gaunilon of Marmoutiers
than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived exists only in the mind, then that-
than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived is that-than-which-a-worse-can-
be-conceived. But this is obviously impossible. Therefore, that-than-which-a-
worse-cannot-be-conceived exists both in the mind and in reality.

But, the existence of that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived is

incompatible with the existence of God; if that-than-which-a-worse-cannot-
be-conceived exists, then God doesn't. For if he did, a worse state of affairs
could be conceived (the one in which he doesn’t exist). Therefore, since that-
than-which-a-worse-cannot-be-conceived does exist, God doesn't.

In fact, the above argument, styled on Anselm’s, can be used to

prove God cannot exist. It substitutes “worse” for “greater.”