Ontological argument

Question 1

Ontological argument?

Answer 1

The ontological argument is a deductive, a priori argument for God’s existence, meaning it relies on logic rather than empirical evidence. Ontology deals with being and existence, making this argument independent of sensory experience.

Question 2

Deductive truths?

Answer 2

Deductive arguments must be analyzed for validity and soundness. If the premises are true and the logic is correct, the conclusion is unavoidable, and denying it would be irrational.

Question 3

Example?

Answer 3

Premise 1: the sun is a star
Premise 2: all stars are balls of flaming gas
Conclusion: therefore, the sun is a ball of flaming gas

This deductive argument has no alternative conclusions. The premises are accurate, and the conclusion logically follows. Disagreeing with it would be irrational if the premises are accepted.

Question 5

Saint Anselm Proslogion 3 ( necessary existence)

Answer 5

The ontological argument is a priori, meaning it relies on logic rather than physical evidence. While modern understanding of “proof” often demands empirical support, philosophers like Plato and Descartes value rational evidence, arguing that our senses can be misleading, whereas logic provides clear, unalterable truths.

Saint Anselm’s Argument (Proslogion 2)
Anselm begins with Psalm 14: “The fool in his heart says there is no God,” suggesting that denying God’s existence is irrational. His argument follows:

God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.
God exists in the mind (intellectu).
If God existed only in the mind, we could imagine a greater being that exists both in the mind and in reality (in re).
Such a being would be greater than God, contradicting premise 1.
Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist in reality.

Question 6

Developments of the ontological argument

Answer 6

Descartes’ Ontological Argument
Part 1:

I exist – “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am).
I have an idea of a perfect being.
As an imperfect being, I could not have conceived this idea on my own.
The idea of a perfect being must come from a perfect being.
Perfection includes existence.
Conclusion: A perfect being (God) must exist.
Part 2:

God is a supremely perfect being.
A supremely perfect being possesses all perfections.
Existence is a necessary perfection.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Question 7

Analogies?

Answer 7

Descartes’ Analogies
Triangle Analogy – A triangle must have three sides and three angles adding up to 180°. Denying this while accepting the concept of a triangle is a logical contradiction.

Mountain and Valley Analogy – A mountain implies the existence of a valley. One cannot exist without the other.

Application to God – Just as these concepts inherently require certain attributes, God’s existence is inseparable from His definition. Denying His existence while accepting His concept is a logical contradiction.

Question 8

Norman Malcolm (1911-1990)

Answer 8

Norman Malcolm’s Ontological Argument
Malcolm, an American philosopher, rejected Anselm’s first argument for treating existence as a predicate. However, he developed a second argument, defining God as an absolutely unlimited being whose existence is necessary rather than just possible.

Using modal logic, which classifies existence as:

Necessary (cannot not exist)
Possible (may or may not exist)
Impossible (cannot exist)
Malcolm’s argument follows:

If God does not exist, He cannot begin to exist, as that would imply limitation.
A truly unlimited being must exist necessarily or not at all.
Since God’s existence is not impossible, it must be necessary.
Conclusion: God necessarily exists.

Question 9

Challenges/critics

Answer 9

Challenges to the Ontological Argument – Gaunilo
Gaunilo, in On Behalf of the Fool, argued that Anselm’s reasoning was flawed because it tries to define something into existence without empirical proof. He believed existence requires evidence, not just reason.

The Perfect Island Analogy
Premise 1: I can conceive of a perfect island, greater than any other.
Premise 2: This island exists in the mind (intellectu).
Premise 3: If it only exists in the mind, then a greater island (existing in reality in re) must be possible.
Premise 4: That would mean the original perfect island was not truly perfect.
Conclusion: Therefore, the perfect island must exist in reality.
Anselm’s Response
Gaunilo misunderstood his argument—God has necessary existence, unlike a contingent island.
Plantinga’s Counter: A perfect island has no intrinsic maximum (it can always be improved), whereas God is maximally great and unchangeable, making the analogy flawed