Ontological Arguments

Question 1

Features of Ontological Arguments

Answer 1

• Ontological” = ‘a study of being’; Ontological Arguments that focus on God’s existence as a necessary being
• Deductive - if they are valid and their premises are true, the conclusion should follow necessarily. If successful, they promise to prove God’s existence with absolute certainty! But are the premises true?
• Claim the premises are true since they concern only a priori definitions and the analysis of concepts. They do not rely on empirical observations. Because they have a priori foundations and proceed deductively, they should establish the existence of God with the same degree of certainty as we find in maths!
• Provides limited conclusions - if true, the conclusion would add nothing new to the premises. Whatever the nature of God assumed in the premises of a deductive argument will be confirmed in the conclusion.

Question 2

Anselm’s Argument

Answer 2

1. By definition, God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
2. We can coherently conceive of such a being i.e. the concept is coherent
3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
4. Therefore, God must exist
   In other words, imagine two beings:
   One is said to be maximally great in every way, but does not exist.
   The other is maximally great in every way and does exist.
   Since God is a being that we cannot imagine to be greater, this description better fits the second option (the one that exists) than the first.

Question 3

Descartes Argument

Answer 3

1. I have the idea of God
2. The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
3. A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection
4. Existence is a perfection
5. Therefore, God exists
   This argument is very similar to Anselm’s, except it uses the concept of a perfect being rather than a being greater than which cannot be conceived.
   Descartes argues this shows that ‘God does not exist’ is a self-contradiction. Hume uses this claim as the basis for his objection to the ontological argument.

Question 4

Problem: Gaunilo’s Island

Answer 4

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers (994-1083) argues that if Anselm’s argument is valid, then anything can be defined into existence. For example:
1. The perfect island is, by definition, an island greater than which cannot be conceived
2. We can coherently conceive of such an island i.e. the concept is coherent
3. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
4. Therefore, this island must exist
The conclusion of this argument is obviously false.
Gaunilo argues that if Anselm’s argument were valid, then we could define anything into existence – the perfect shoe, the perfect tree, the perfect book, etc.

Question 5

Problem: Hume, God does not exist is not a contradiction

Answer 5

The ontological argument reasons from the definition of God that God must exist. This would make ‘God exists’ an analytic truth. The denial of an analytic truth/relation of ideas leads to a contradiction. Contradictions cannot be coherently conceived.
But Hume argues against this claim. Anything we can conceive of as existent, he says, we can also conceive of as non-existent. This shows that “God exists” cannot be an analytic truth/relation of ideas, and so ontological arguments must fail somewhere.
A summary of Hume’s argument can be stated as:
1. If ontological arguments succeed, ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction
2. A contradiction cannot be coherently conceived
3. But ‘God does not exist’ can be coherently conceived
3. Therefore, ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction
4. Therefore, ontological arguments do not succeed

Question 6

Problem: Kant, existence is not a predicate

Answer 6

Immanuel Kant argues that existence is not a property (predicate) of things in the same way, say , green is a property of grass. To say something exists doesn’t add anything to the concept of it. Gods existence cannot be argued from the definition of God and could only be proved via a posteriori experience. Thus the ontological argument fails to prove God’s existence.

Question 7

Norman Malcom’s Ontological Argument

Answer 7

Malcolm argues that it’s not existence that is a perfection, but the logical impossibility of non-existence. This is a predicate, so avoids Kant’s argument above. Malcolm’s ontological argument is as follows:
1. Either God exists or does not exist
2. God cannot come into existence or go out of existence
3. If God exists, God cannot cease to exist
4. Therefore, if God exists, God’s existence is necessary
5. Therefore, if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible
6. Therefore, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
7. God’s existence is impossible only if the concept of God is self-contradictory
8. The concept of God is not self-contradictory
9. Therefore, God’s existence is not impossible
10. Therefore, God exists necessarily
Malcolm’s argument essentially boils down to:
- God’s existence is either necessary or impossible
- God’s existence is not impossible
- Therefore God’s existence is necessary