Michael Palmer explains why the ontological argument is unique. ‘With this distinction between a priori and a posteriori behind us, we can now appreciate why the ontological argument for God’s existence is unique. All the other arguments we shall look at – for example, the causal argument, the argument from design,  base their case on what is the most plausible explanation for various experiences we have of the world. They do not argue that a particular explanation is by definition the only possible explanation but rather that, on the evidence before them, it is the only likely explanation. To this extent they have the form of a posteriori arguments. The ontological argument, on the other hand, is alone in maintaining that God’s existence can be established a priori without recourse to empirical evidence – that is, evidence drawn from experience – and thus solely on the basis of an analysis of the concept of God.’. (A Question of God page 3). Below is the specification for this area – hyperlinks are embedded to help you find the resources. PB

2. The Existence of God: Ontological Argument

Learners will study contrasting arguments about the existence or non-existence of God.

2.1 Content

• the ontological argument

2.2 Knowledge

• details of this argument including reference to:
– Anselm
– Gaunilo’s criticisms
– Kant’s criticisms

2.3 Issues as the basis of exam questions

Learners should have the opportunity to discuss issues related to arguments for the existence of God based on reason, including:
• whether a posteriori or a priori is the more persuasive style of argument
• whether or not existence can be treated as a predicate
• whether or not the ontological argument justifies belief
• whether or not there are logical fallacies in this argument that cannot be overcome

2.4 Suggested scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority

For reference, the ideas of Anselm, Gaunilo and Kant listed above can be found in:
• Anselm, Proslogion 2 and 3
• Gaunilo, In behalf of the fool
• Kant, A critique of pure reason, Second Division III.IV

Learners will be given credit for referring to any appropriate scholarly views, academic approaches and sources of wisdom and authority, however the following examples may prove useful:
• Psalm 14.1
• Van Inwagen, P. ‘Necessary Being: the Ontological Argument’ in Stump, E and
Murray, M. J. (ed) (1999) Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions, Blackwell
• Plantinga, A. (1978) God, Freedom and Evil, Grand Rapids, II.c