Revision:The Ontological Argument

TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Philosophy > The Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument is one of five classical arguments for the existence of God. It moves from a definition of God as being “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” to a proof of God, using a priori logic. It was formulated primarily by St. Anselm (1033-1109), but remains a relevant philosophical discussion today.

+Anselm (1033-1109) ‘Proslogion’

(1st formulation) God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” (“aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit”) (Findlay – must be this to be an object worthy of worship). It is better to exist in the mind and in reality than to just exist in the mind (example of painter). Existence is a predicate of perfection. Therefore God must exist in reality. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14) despite accepting the argument – if you understand the definition of God, you can’t deny that God exists.

-Gaunilo ‘On Behalf of the Fool’

Just because we can conceive a perfect island, doesn’t mean such a place exists, this is ‘absurd’. The fool is right to demand proof that God is in fact, and not just by definition, the greatest conceivable being.

+Anselm responds (2nd formulation)

His argument doesn’t apply to islands because islands are contingent whereas God is necessary (“only those things which have a beginning and end, or are composed of parts, can be thought of as non-existent”), something which cannot be conceived as not existing is greater than something than can.

+Plantinga

Also argues that unlike God, islands have no “intrinsic maximum” because you could always add another beach etc.

+Descartes (1596-1650) ‘Meditations’

Develops Anselm. God is a “supremely perfect being.” Existence is part of the essence of God, it is illogical and contradictory to think of God and not understand that he must exist. “From the fact that I cannot conceive of God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from Him, and hence that He really exists.” Just as the notion of a triangle involves the sum of two right angles, the notion of God involves his existence. “Cogito ergo sum,” can only rely on reason, all other arguments could be doubted. The Ontological Argument is accessible without having to go out into the world and test it.

-Bishop Berkeley

The abstract triangle is a non-entity, same could apply for God, human concept. -Kant – if we dismiss the predicate (3 sides) AND the subject (triangle) there is no contradiction.

-Aquinas (1224-1275)

It is impossible for us, with limited intellect, to understand or define the nature of God. “Because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition ‘God exists’ is not self-evident to us.” (Also, people have different definitions of God e.g. Process Theology). Aquinas admits that God could exist mentally for an atheist, only exists actually for a theist.

-Hume (1711-1776)

All existential properties are synthetic, judged true or false on the basis of experience, can’t be a predicate. It is not possible to take an idea in the mind, apply pure logic to it, and reach a conclusion about the external universe. (However maybe our senses only tell us about this world, God is outside of this world.)

-Kant (1724-1804) ‘Critique of Pure Reason’

The ontological argument makes an illegitimate jump from ideas to reality. (1) We can accept a proposition as true by definition, doesn’t mean there is anything in the world to which it refers e.g. ‘unicorns have horns’, doesn’t mean they exist. (2) “Existence is obviously not a real predicate” because a predicate must give information, when we describe something “we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that the thing is.” (echoed by Russell “Existence is quite definitely not a predicate,” Frege, existence is a 2nd order predicate, different to e.g. redness, Gassendi, if existence is a property then non-existence is also a property, but couldn’t have something with non-existence as a property. Also perfection is a scale whereas existence is either true or false, so existence isn’t a perfection)

Modern versions do not use existence as a predicate – instead based on God’s necessity:

+Malcolm (1911-1990)

Criticises Anselm’s idea that we can prove God’s existence from analysing his nature. God cannot be contingent because this would involve a cause to bring him in or out of existence, which would limit him, and God is by definition limitless. So God must be impossible or necessary. Only impossible if he is absurd or contradictory (arbitrary?) which he isn’t, so he must be necessary. Hick criticised this – moves from factual necessity to logical necessity. In the same way that the existence of God is neither absurd nor contradictory, neither is the non-existence of God. Malcolm also appreciated that an atheist could understand the argument hypothetically without being converted; you need faith to understand it fully because then the understanding comes “from the emotions” (Kierkegaard) which is a deeper understanding.

+Barth

Anselm intended his argument as an exploration of faith rather than a proof, framed at beginning and end as a prayer (“I do not seek to understand to believe so that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand.”)

+Plantinga (b. 1932)

Criticises Malcolm, God can be contingent without being limited. There is a possible world (i.e. a possible state of affairs rather than an actual place) where a being exists with ‘maximal greatness’ (which entails maximal excellence, which entails omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence). A being only has maximal greatness if it exists in every possible world, so it must exist in our world. (Davies – proves God’s rational acceptability rather than his actual existence)

-Schopenhauer

A “charming joke” and a “sleight of hand trick,” logically the argument seems to work but doesn’t seem quite right.

Comment

These notes are aimed at people studying for OCR A2 Philosophy.

Originally written by rejey on TSR Forums.