The Student Room Group

Ontological Argument - I can't write a good essay

I've been doing some philosophy past questions in preparation for my AS philosophy exam on 7th June, but I can't seem to write a good essay about the ontological argument.

The part a question was simply "Explain Anselm's Ontological Argument". I understand the argument itself, but my essay is barely even a page long and I've written down everything I can think of, but after I've explained Anselm's arguments I am stuck for things to say that flesh out the essay a bit more. I don't think I need to include other thinkers/counter arguments as it is only asking me to explain Anselm's, but that means that I'm limited.

Does anyone have any tips about how I can explain Anselm's arguments in better detail? And what else to include?
Reply 1
IM HAVINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG the sameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee problem!
I'd reccomend buying "OCR Philosophy Of Religion for AS and A2" by Matthew Taylor - It seem late in terms of the AS exam but it is for A2 as well. - the book is massive (450 pages!) and I've found it very useful!

I'm doing A2 at the moment, but have decided to re-take AS as well.

I'll write some information about Anselm's argument which may help you:

- The argument is an attempt to prove God's existence is analytically true, meaning it would be nonsense to say "God doesn't exist".

First Argument
- God is the greatest possible being which can be conceived
- God may exist in the mind alone, or in reality as well
- Something which exists in reality is greater than something which exists in the mind alone
- Therefore, God must exist in reality as well as the mind.

The argument is a response to the "fool" who says there is no God. For the fool to say God doesn't exist, he must have an idea in his mind of what "God" is.

Existence is a predicate
Predicate = an intrinsic property of something

Anselm claims that a predicate of God is God's existence.

Anselm's second version of the argument
- God is a being nothing greater than which can be thought of
- Something which cannot be thought of to not exist is greater than anything which can be thought not to exist
- Therefore it is impossible to think that this being doesn't exist
- And this being is what we call "God"

The second version adds the point that it is impossible for this being, God, not to exist. - If you say "God doesn't exist", you are contradicting yourself.

He is concluding that God has has to exist (necessary existence), meaning God has to exist by necessity. Most things depend on other things for their existence, for example your home only exists because someone made it. (This is contingent existence)

I hope I helped :smile:
If your question doesn't specify only Anselm's version of the argument add some of the developments made by Descartes and how it links to the idea of predicate and necessary existence.
Also remember to mention that it's A Priori, analytic reasoning and a deductive argument which, if you explain those terms and how they relate to the argument, can take up a whole extra paragraph :P
I have a 25/25 AO1 I could email if that would be any help?
Reply 4
Yeah don't just do Anselm, here's what I'd do:

Intro
- Type of argument: deductive, a priori
- What it does: Seeks to prove God through reason alone
- Who's involved: Anselm main, Galnio criticsed, Descartes reformed and a few others (no need to name them in intro)

Anselm
- Who he is: Christian, 13th Century Monk
- Sought to prove God to non-believers (the fool)
- His first argument:
God is the greatest being conceivable
Something can be in the mind alone, or in the mind and exist (Sorry forgot exact phrasing)
It is better to be in the mind and exist than just the mind alone
Therefore God exists

- Then goes on to say it is foolish to say God does not exist (reductio ad absurdum), because that would mean there was a greater being than God

Galnio
- Criticised this saying he can imagine a perfect island, doesn't mean it exists
- The fool has the right t evidence

Anselm
- Came back and said it only works for neccessary things, which God is

Descartes
- Develops Anselm’s argument
- Existence is part of the essence of God / a predicate
- It is contradictory to think if him and then deny his existence
- A triangle is the sum of two right angles, God involves existence
- ‘Cogito ergo sum’ - you can only rely on reason, all other arguments can be doubted

And if you've got time...

Malcom
Resurrected the argument in the '60's
If God came into existence now, he would not be God
If God does not exist now his existence is impossible s he’s eternal
It is not, so God’s existence is necessary
In the same way, God is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent
His argument is only accepted by believers
Why prove something to those who are already convinced? Anselm was aiming at the fool

Latest