Arguments for Existence of God - The Ontological Argument

Question 1

what does ontology refer to

Answer 1

to the study of being

Question 2

For Anselm, God’s existence necessitates what

Answer 2

existence

Question 3

Anselm’s ontological argument - 6 points plus conclusion

Answer 3

1-God is a being ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’
2-There is a definition which even a fool understands
3-There is a difference between having an idea in the mind and knowing that this idea exists in reality
4-Eg, a painter has an idea in his mind of what he wants to paint but when he painted it, that idea now exists both in his mind and in reality
5-It is better to exist both in mind and reality than only in the mind
6-If God existed only in the mind one could only think of something greater, namely , a God who existed in reality also
C- Therefore in order to be the greatest conceivable being (P1), God must exist both in mind and reality

Question 4

What is the Ontological argument based on

Answer 4

Based on the claim that God’s existence can be deduced by definition - that once God is defined correctly, there can be no doubt He exists

Question 5

Inductive or deductive argument and why

Answer 5

Deductive because the premise ‘God is The greatest being that can exist’ is true by definition

Question 6

A priori or A posteriori and why

Answer 6

A priori because it does not use evidence

Question 7

Analytic or synthetic statement and why

Answer 7

Analytic

Question 8

Random Criticisms

Answer 8

Premise could be wrong so argument fails consequentially.
Starts with something that cannot be evidenced
It is a circular argument which uses God to prove God

Question 9

About Giuliano and his criticisms and then Anselm’s response

Answer 9

Gaunilo lived at the time of Anselm ad was a monk
He disagreed with Anselm’s argument and wrote a response titled ‘On behalf of the fool’
Gaunilo believed that according to Anselm’s logic you can argue anything exists as long as you make it the greatest imaginable of its kind eg an island
It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind
therefore this island exists as the greatest possible island
Aka in summary a lost perfect island should exist according to Anselm’s logic but it clearly does not.

Anselm’s response:
To be perfect, an island would have to be ‘that island which no greater can be conceived’
An islands are contingent so cannot exist necessarily
Therefore the logic of the argument related to a perfect island does not apply to God

Anselm gives a clear refutation of Gaunilo’s ‘perfect lost island’ argument showing that necessary existence is a predicate only of Gods and not of things

God is the greatest conceivable being
the greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist
Therefore God and God alone possesses necessary existence - God cannot not exist

Question 10

about St Anselm Of Cantebury

Answer 10

was a bishop - A Christian in power probably assuming everyone reading was a Christian so was probably attempting to confirm beliefs rather than convert.

Late 11th century

was attempting to use reason to prove God’s existence

Question 11

some exact wording of St Anselm’s argument

Answer 11

‘God cannot be conceived not to exist - God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’
Refers to a ‘fool’ - reflection of Psalm 14 talking about the atheist
later in extract uses religious language perhaps this may back up the fact that He was writing to reaffirm faith than convert eg ‘you exist, O Lord, my God’

Question 12

About Descartes

Answer 12

Doubted everything, even his own existence
Therefore arguing for God’s existence had to be an a priori argument as he doubted even his own senses…which led him to his famous statement ‘I think therefore i am’ ultimately he believed he himself existed because he could think of his existence so thought we had to use the same reasoning for God…

Question 13

Descartes ontological argument

Answer 13

God is the supremely perfect being
A supremely perfect being is one that has all perfections
Existence is a perfection (ie something perfect must exist - not saying that all that exists is perfect but means it is more perfect to exist than not to exist)
Therefore God exists.

For Descartes, existence was an inseparable predicate (characteristic) of God. Just as a triangle has three angles is an inseparable predicate of a triangle. We cannot take away existence from God just as we cannot take three angles from a triangle

makes logical sense

Question 14

Kant’s criticisms of Descartes Ontological argument

Answer 14

Existence is not a predicate
Kant extends his objection by offering a similar argument to Aquinas. That just because something exists in our minds it does not necessarily exist in reality: He says, “To posit a triangle, and yet to reject its three angles, is self contradictory: but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles. The same holds true of an absolutely necessary being. If its existence is rejected, we reject the thing itself with all its predicates: and no question of contradiction can arise”

1-Existence cannot be a predicate. of God because ‘existence is not a predicate’
Kant believed a predicate had to describe an object. Saying something exists does not describe it. Therefore, if existence cannot belong to our definition. of God, ontological argument fails.
2-Even if we do accept that God exists is an analytic statement,this does not mean that God exists in reality
The only way we would know if this was true was to experience God- in other words ensure that ‘God exists’ is a synthetic statement. The only thing that can be said is ‘If there is a God,then He exists necessarily’

the most Kant believes we can say but the only way we can say is through evidence. Can argue through experience, proof, miracles etc but not the Ontological argument…

Question 15

Evaluation overall

Answer 15

unsuccessful or successful to an extent - modal argument is the most successful Ontological one though

Question 16

overall short recall of each stage of the Argument Anselm

Answer 16

Anselm - defines God as greatest being so existence must follow as it is greater to exist than not

Gaunilo-according to this logic anything can exist as long as you make it the greatest imaginable of its kind eg an island

Anselm - An island is contingent and contingfebt things can be thought of as not exxisting but God’s existence is necessary. God must exist as God is the greatest being.

Descartes - God is the supremely perfect being existence is a perfection (more perfect to exist than not so God exists) Existence is a predicate (characteristic)

Kant - Existence is not a predicate (characteristic)
so cannot be a predicate of God…saying something exists does not describe it so existence cannot belong to our definition of God therefore argument fails….instead of predicate, it is a precondition for a being to be great at all so has to be independently supported beyond a beings definition

Question 17

Each stage of the modal Ontological argument

Answer 17

In the twentieth century, some philosophers of religion tried to rehabilitate Anselm’s argument using a tool of reasoning called modal logic.

Modal logic is a system that helps us understand concepts such as necessity and possibility. If something is necessary, then it has to be or there can be no world without that thing. If something is possible, however, that simply means it can be.

eg using modal logic, we would say that if something is necessary, then it is also possible. If it has to be, then it can be. Another way to understand this kind of logic is through the language of “possible worlds.”

The actual world is the universe or reality in which you and I currently exist. A “possible world” is just an alternative way to describe the actual world that never actually happened. For example, in another possible world you never read this article, or I never wrote it, or I never even existed.

While some philosophers speak of possible worlds as if they were real, existing things (sort of like parallel dimensions), most people understand this as just the language of possibility. We use the language of “possible worlds” to talk about how things could have been.

But when we do that, we notice that some things are constant, no matter what possible world we talk about. For example, no matter what possible world we can conceive, two plus two always equals four. We say these truths are necessary, or that they exist in every possible world.

Okay, so maybe there are truths that exist in every possible world, but could there be a being that exists in every possible world, or a necessary being?

Some philosophers have used modal logic and its notions of “necessity” and “possibility” to get around Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument. The most famous of these is Alvin Platinga’s argument that a “maximally great being” must exist. William Lane Craig summarizes Plantinga’s argument this way:

It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Is God even ‘possible’?
If it is possible God exists, then God must exist in some possible world or description of reality. But if God exists in one possible world, then he must exist in every possible world—because God, by definition, exists in all logically possible circumstances. But the actual world is a possible world, albeit one that actually came about, so that means God exists in this world too. Therefore, God exists.

It may surprise you to learn that most philosophers think Plantinga’s argument is valid, meaning it doesn’t have any logical errors. According to atheist Arnold Guminski:

It is generally agreed that the [argument] is formally valid. And I think that it is fairly obvious (assuming that a maximally great being is defined as a maximally excellent being that exists in every possible world) that if a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then that being exists in all possible worlds and therefore in the actual world (infidels.org/library/modern/ arnold_guminski/plantinga.html).

The weakness of the argument lies in the first premise, namely, “It is possible that a maximally great being exists.” If this means hypothetically possible (or, “for all we know”), then the argument doesn’t really prove anything, since it’s also hypothetically possible that a maximally great being exists in no possible world, and such a premise could be used to form a valid “anti-ontological argument” against God’s existence.

But if it means metaphysically possible, in the same way it’s possible the roulette table could have landed on black instead of red, then we need some reason to believe God’s existence is a real possibility. That’s why most philosophers have tried to show that a thing such as a universe that requires an explanation for its existence naturally leads to at least the possibility of God’s existence.

For example, the philosophers Brian Leftow and Alexander Pruss believe the ontological argument can be strengthened by noting that people’s experience of God supports the premise that God is a real possibility, since people don’t have experiences of logically impossible things such as square circles.

But when philosophers appeal to these experiential reasons to support God’s existence, they’re no longer making a purely ontological argument for God’s existence based solely on proving God exists from the idea of God alone. This may be why Plantinga wrote, “They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (The Nature of Necessity).

Personally, I don’t use the ontological argument when I evangelize atheists, because most people think it’s just some kind of semantic trick and so are already antagonistic about it. I agree with Plantinga that it isn’t a classical proof for the existence of God.

However, people have a wide variety of intellects and imaginations, and so I believe the argument may be helpful for certain people who are open to this way of thinking about the issue.

In that respect, the ontological argument is similar to another “unusual argument” for the existence of God from Peter Kreeft:

There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don’t.

When it comes to modern versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God, I agree: you either see this one or you don’t.

Sidebar: Ontology à la Descartes
The philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) proposed his own version of the ontological argument, based not on the idea of God entailing God’s existence but on the impossibility of a finite mind coming up with such an infinite idea in the first place. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli summarize Descartes’s argument this way:

“We have ideas of many things. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God—an infinite, all-perfect being. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God. But only God himself has those qualities. Therefore, God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him. Therefore, God exists.”