Essay Section 2: (Answer ALL parts of this essay) Worth 35 points.   1. In your own words fully explain Anselm’s Ontological argument for God’s existence step by step. How exactly is it that he thinks he can prove that an ACTUAL God exists from just the mere IDEA of God? Explain the logical thought process of this argument step by step and in detail. (You may bring Descartes’ Ontological Argument into this if you want). Make sure you illustrate your points with your own examples.  As part of your explanation, make sure to explain why the Ontological Argument can be used with the idea of God, but NOT with something like the “perfect ice-cream cone”.   2. How does this sort of argument differ from an a posteriori approach like the Cosmological or Teleological arguments?   3. Explain in your own words and in detail BOTH of Kant’s criticisms to the Ontological Argument that “Existence is not a predicate”. Make sure you fully explain exactly how these criticisms affect the Ontological argument. Give your own examples.

Berkeley thought that something would NOT exist if there was no mind to perceive it.

Which of the following best summarizes the Egocentric Predicament /Veil of Perception Problem?

Who thought Primary Qualities are objective and cannot be separated from the physical bodies?

Who thought: when not perceived by us, all things exist in the Infinite mind of God?

From Meditation I:    8. However, I have for many years been sure that there is an all-powerful God who made me to be the sort of creature that I am. How do I know that he hasn’t brought it about that there is no earth, no sky, nothing that takes up space, no shape, no size, no place, while making sure that all these things appear to me to exist? Anyway, I sometimes think that others go wrong even when they think they have the most perfect knowledge; so how do I know that I myself don’t go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square? Well, ·you might say·, God would not let me be deceived like that, because he is said to be supremely good. But, ·I reply·, if God’s goodness would stop him from letting me be deceived •all the time, you would expect it to stop him from allowing me to be deceived even •occasionally; yet clearly I sometimes am deceived.     9. Some people would deny the existence of such a powerful God rather than believe that everything else is uncertain. Let us grant them—for purposes of argument—that there is no God, and theology is fiction. On their view, then, I am a product of fate or chance or a long chain of causes and effects. But the less powerful they make my original cause, the more likely it is that I am so imperfect as to be deceived all the time—because deception and error seem to be imperfections. Having no answer to these arguments, I am driven back to the position that doubts can properly be raised about any of my former beliefs. I don’t reach this conclusion in a flippant or casual manner, but on the basis of powerful and well thought-out reasons. So in future, if I want to discover any certainty, I must withhold my assent from these former beliefs just as carefully as I withhold it from obvious falsehoods.     Pick the most correct answer that illustrates the main point in passage 8:  

For Locke, Secondary Qualities are:

For John Locke, an example of a Primary Quality is an object’s color.

For Kant, Rational agents/beings:

According to Kant, rational beings should be treated as: