SAINT LEO PHI110 RS Module 3 Content QUIZ 2

PHI110 RS Module 3 Content QUIZ 2

1. Question : Gaunilo uses the perfect island argument to show that:

Student Answer: God does not exist.

God exists.

Anselm is implicitly committed to atheism.

Anselm’s ontological argument is absurd.

Points Received: 0 of 5

Comments

Question 2. Question : Which of the following is most accurate regarding Gaunilo’s argument for the existence of a perfect island?

Student Answer: Its conclusion is trivially true.

It uses the same basic reasoning as Anselm’s ontological argument.

It establishes the existence of God on the basis of the beauty and order exhibited in the natural world.

It establishes that God’s body is physical.

Points Received: 5 of 5

Comments:

Question 3. Question : Some philosophers have held that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is (or can be) known intuitively to be true. Rowe questions this reasoning because:

Student Answer: according to Rowe, there are no statements at all that can be known intuitively to be true.

though there are some statements that can be known intuitively to be true, it is doubtful that many of us, if any, know intuitively that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is true.

there are clear examples of other metaphysical statements, known intuitively to be true, that contradict the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

although metaphysical statements can be known intuitively to be true, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is not a metaphysical statement.

Points Received: 5 of 5

Comments:

Question 4. Question : In order to motivate the first premise of Clarke’s cosmological argument, Rowe introduces a distinction made by Anselm regarding three classes of possible beings. Which of the following is NOT one of Anselm’s three cases as characterized by Rowe?

Student Answer: Being is explained by nothing.

Being is explained by God.

Being is explained by another.

Being is explained by itself.

Points Received: 0 of 5

Comments:

Question 5. Question : The argument for the existence of God as put forward by William Paley in our textbook is best characterized as a version of which of the following types of classical theistic arguments?

Student Answer: Ontological argument

Cosmological argument

Teleological argument

Moral argument

Points Received: 5 of 5

Comments:

Question 6. Question : According to Robin Collin’s fine-tuning argument for the existence of God: PHI110 RS Module 3 Content QUIZ 2

 

 

MORE INFO 

Anselm’s ontological argument

Introduction

In this post, I will be exploring the ontological argument for God’s existence. The argument was first published by Anselm in his book “Proslogion.” It is one of the most famous arguments for God’s existence and is often considered to be one of its strongest. In addition, as a personal aside, this argument has been incredibly influential on me personally: when I was searching for answers to life’s big questions (who am I? why are we here?) and trying to understand what mattered most in my life, finding an answer through logic felt like exactly what I needed.

The argument starts by setting out a definition of God.

We have a definition of God:

God is the greatest possible being.

What does it mean for something to be “the greatest possible being”? What does that even mean? Well, let’s start with the most basic question: What exactly is a being? To answer this question, we need to know what all things are made of and how they interact with each other. So if we want to figure out what makes something a being—and thus whether or not it could be considered greater than other things—we should start by looking at their constituent parts.

Anselm argues that it is possible to think of (conceive of) even the most perfect being, a being than which nothing greater can be thought

Anselm’s ontological argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God by appealing not just to reason but also intuition. He makes a case for the superiority of God over any other being and argues that if we cannot conceive of something greater than him, then it follows that he must exist.

In his fifth chapter, “God as Being in General,” Anselm says that it is possible for us to think about even the most perfect being possible: “a being than which nothing greater can be thought.” This means that there must be such a being; otherwise we would not be able to conceive its existence at all! In order for something else besides this hypothetical supremely perfect being (which might or might not exist) not only exist but also know how much better they are than anything else—that would mean they could compare themselves directly with each other instead just talking about how good some other thing might be compared against itself…

That existing in the understanding isn’t enough. Since God is by definition perfect, he must exist in reality too.

The argument concludes that God exists in reality, not merely in the understanding. The reason is that if God were only a concept or idea, then he would be greater than anything we could conceive of. But Anselm claims that no such being can exist: “For since there is nothing greater than God, and since he cannot be thought of except as existing by his nature alone; it follows that if any one were to suppose another being greater than he (God), then this other being would be actually distinct from him.”

This is where things get tricky for those who believe in God’s existence but don’t think He’s omniscient or omnipotent—or even just a good guy who wants us all happy and healthy! If you’re inclined toward skepticism about whether your beloved deity cares about our well-being at all times (and I’m sure many people are), then this section might seem like something out of Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through The Looking Glass: “Why do you bother with them? They know nothing about themselves.”

The argument establishes that the greatest possible thing must exist both in the mind and in reality

Anselm’s ontological argument is a valid argument. It is sound, meaning that it has no flaws in its reasoning or structure. The argument can be considered to be both a logical proof and a sound proof because of its ability to establish that something must exist in reality as well as in the mind of God (i.e., “God”).

Conclusion

I will admit, I was surprised by how the argument turned out. It seemed so simple at first! I mean, if there’s no greater being than which nothing greater can be thought and that being exists in reality too… Well, then it must be true that God exists in reality too (right?)