Evaluation of the ontological argument

I need help evaluating and finding strengths for the ontological argument, I know about it being a priori and deductive therefore it isn't based on empirical evidence which can be unreliable etc, and that its logical so the premises come to a logical conclusion. However are there any more? Any specific ones? Please help my mock is next week.

Reply 1

yeahthatonethere

Original post by BabyPoppadom

I got an A in AQA Religious Studies (AS Level) last year and I scanned some of my old notes onto dropbox. I can give you the link if you want!

Here are some points I remembered:
Weaknesses
> Gaunilo applied the argument to the idea of a "Perfect Island". If we think of an island which is "that than which nothing greater can be thought", much like God, then if it is the best it must exist in reality but we know it does not. Therefore the argument is incorrect.
> Kant argues that "existence" is not a predicate. Just saying something exists does not necessarily mean it does and does not add to our understanding of that thing. Basically, just saying God exists does not mean he does and does not add to our understanding of God therefore the argument is weak.

Strengths
> As it is a priori, if you accept the premises then, logically, you must accept the deductions.
>Gaunilo's arguments are weak as an island and God are incomparable. God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and an island is nothing special.

To be honest it was always a pretty crap argument making finding strengths pretty difficult!
Hope I've helped and anymore questions, just ask!

Reply 2

BabyPoppadom

Thank you so much! Could you argue something along the lines of, an island is contingent whereas representations of god indicate that he possesses necessary existence?

Reply 3

yeahthatonethere

Original post by BabyPoppadom

Thank you so much! Could you argue something along the lines of, an island is contingent whereas representations of god indicate that he possesses necessary existence?