A LEVEL: Philosophy and Ethics, Ontological Argument (Edexcel)

Philosophy & Ethics

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

• A argument that is a priori. (does not reply on evidence of the senses but by logical steps moving towards a conclusion.
• The conclusion is therefore self-evidently true or logically necessary.
• The argument is deductive and analytic.

Origins of the Argument

Anselm the 1078 Archbishop of Canterbury concluded that he was the ‘one who strives to lift his mind to the contemplation of God, and who seeks to understand what he believes’.

The Proslogion - A single short argument which would prove almost everything about God.

Anselm was attempting to prove the existence of God by means of reductio ad absurdum. 

This method of reasoning was to demonstrate the truth by means of demonstrating the absurdity of the opposing arguments. 

So in term’s of Anselm’s situation he aimed to show the absurdity of a non-existent God. 

Premises of the Argument

 1. The definition of ‘God’ as ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’ and this then indicates that…

2. Why the non existence of God is logically impossible.

3. Why a ‘fool’ would believe that the impossible is true.

Defining God 

Anselm’s own argument revolves around the word ‘God’, for Anselm he uses the word ‘God’ as an abbreviation of the above quote. 

However, Anselm is not claiming that God is spatially clever but rather that he is the most perfect being that is conceivable. 

Therefore, if the idea of God existing in the mind is possible, surely if:

God existed in intellectu it would be even better if he also existed in de re

PERFECTION & EXISTENCE

If by existing something is perfection then it means then that if a being was the ideal perfection then He must exist. 

GOD has a Necessary Existence

Anselm places the meaning of existence alongside love and wisdom, thus suggesting he himself believes that existence s a defining characteristic. 

THIS POINT ^ IS MUCHO IMPORTANTE 

This is because it means that existence can be possessed or lacked. 

Descartes: The Perfect Being

René Descartes changed Anselm’s Ontological Argument: he changed it to mean the perfect being and a necessary existence.

As a rationalist philosopher he wanted to seek to prove the existence of God based on reason rather than anything else.

He came to the conclusion that because he could doubt the knowledge that he himself knew, he felt that the act of disbelieving was enough to prove that he himself existed, thus coining the term:

Cogito, ergo sum

He wanted people to realise that God meant an infinitely perfect being superior to all being in terms of perfection.  

Descartes used the analogy of a triangle to portray this predicate. If God’s definition is one of a supremely perfect being, then this means that like a triangle, by tautology God’s existence is logically necessary. 

SUPPORT FOR THE ARGUMENT

Norman Malcolm

God’s existence can only be either impossible or necessary, not contingent. 

Only if we adopt Hume’s argument can we see that a necessary existence may be an incoherent concept. 

Malcolm’s argument does not prove the existence only that if God existed that he would exist necessarily. 

However, Malcolm also questioned the idea of existence as a perfection and if it was a reasonably claim to follow. 

Alvin Plantinga 

Plantinga talked about many possible alternative worlds where things could be different.   

Plantinga argued that God is both maximally great and  maximally excellent. 

• Therefore a world must exist where there exists a being of maximal greatness. 

• A being of maximal excellence is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent in all worlds.

However, Plantinga only successfully argues that there is a possible God in all possible worlds, not that he is a actual in all possible worlds. 

MODAL FORM OF THE ARGUMENT

OBJECTIONS TO ANSELM

Gaunilo: The Perfect Island

Accused Anselm of jumping from a definition to a existence.

• Gaunilo replaced the word ‘God’ with ‘the greatest island’.

This resulted in:

• Same Form
• True Premises
• but a False Conclusion 

ANSELM’S REBUTTAL:

HE CLAIMED THAT GAUNILO HAD MISUNDERSTOOD, IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A COMPARISON BETWEEN GOD AND THE ISLAND, THE ISLAND ALSO HAD TO BE NECESSARY.  

Aquinas: 

‘abuse of human rational faculties’ ~ Stephen Mulhall

‘transitional error’ - moving from a definition of God to the existence of God. 

Aquinas rejected the a priori argument saying that based on only fallible human intellect it cannot prove the existence of God. Although both the theist and atheist can understand the definition of God, it is only in understanding not in reality. According to Aquinas, to prove the existence of God in reality, it can only be demonstrated by a posteriori. 

Kant: Existence is not a predicate

Fundamental to both Descartes and Anselm’s argument is that existence is a predicate. 

• Existence and the definition of something do not go together. 
• It does not add to our understanding of that thing (God)

We must establish the existence of something before we can say what it is. We have not established a real living God therefore we cannot say what it is. 

If it’s a perfect being then yes it mis exist, but that argument does not work, because we have not established what a perfect being is. Therefore it would be like saying an existing God exists. 

Whereas, if we cannot establish an existing God, then we can also reject the argument that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ 

Taking Descartes’ analogy, it would be:

‘self-contradictory to posit a triangle and yet reject its three angles, but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles’ 

• St Masters Press: Critique of Pure Reason

Support for Kant

Bertrand Russell:

He took Kant’s argument and developed it further -> 

Existence is not a predicate but a term used to indicate that something has a place in the patio-temporal world.

A predicate would be something that tells us about the object mentioned, but exist only indicates that they occupy a place in the world. A predicate would assume that the subject is already existent more so than imagination.

However, he makes it a point to realise that grammar does not make an argument logically reasonable. 

eg) 

All cows have tails [and exist]

All unicorns have horns [and exist]

Grammatically the two claims fit and it makes sense, but it is not entirely valid and so the logical structure of a claim is not sufficient enough to have provided the information, in order to trust a claim we must make accurate reasoning for God’s existence. 

David Hume 

• existence can only ever be contingent, not necessary 
• all things which exist can also be said to not exist

Richard Dawkins 

He rejects the ontological argument based on the claim that the argument is ‘infantile’.

For Dawkins the fact that the argument seems to follow a logical premise-conclusion form is a ‘logo-machist trickery’, and it would be absurd to believe that such an argument could come to the ‘grand conclusion’ that God exists. Dawkins supported Russell’s argument as well.

Anti-Realism

Ontological argument would work if we accept that the premises are not objectively true but subjectively true statements.