Ontological Argument: Example Essay (June 2011)

Ginny.T 

b. (i) Examine the ways in which the ontological argument attempts to prove to the atheist that God exists.
(ii) ’The weaknesses of the ontological argument give support to atheist.’ Discuss this claim. 

(i) 

The ontological argument is one of the traditional proofs that argues for the existence of God; however, it differs from its counterparts (teleological and cosmological arguments) because it is based on a priori statements, and its premises lead to a deductive conclusion, proving its strengths in its ability to be logically analytical. And this may result from the fact that the ontological argument is based on a definition of what God is. Thus, making it difficult for the atheist to dispute, and we shall explore the many ways that the ontological argument attempts to do so. 

One of the key scholars that advocated this a priori argument, is Anselm, and he directly addresses the atheist, stating that ‘only fools say in their hearts - there is no God.’ In the light of this view, we now know that Anselm considers the atheist as ill-equipped to believe in deity, but for what apparent reason? Anselm’s form of the ontological argument portrays that the atheists are fools because they believe in a contradiction. From Anselm’s perspective God, is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, this implies that God is the greatest possible being, but it also highlights, that if God did not exist then it would be logically impossible, and thus, only the fool would believe the impossible. This is because, if God is the greatest conceivable being, then he would have to exist, because if he did not, then he would not be the greatest possible being. This is further supported by the fact that the atheist has to accept the definition of God that Anselm has provided because it makes sense, and both parties are able to agree that this is what the definition of a deity is. This clear understanding of the definition then leads to the notion that if we can picture this definition of God in our minds or in intellectu, then it would be far greater for God to exist in de re as God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ Therefore, God must exist and the atheist must accept that if they disagree then they are contradicting all that they have understood. 

Similarly, another reason for why God exists, is because he holds a necessary existence. This is part of Anselm’s second argument for the existence of God, and that it is greater to have a necessary existence than a contingent. This would also explain the reasons for why God is paramount for human experience, but it also highlights that Anselm considers existence to be a defining characteristic for a being to be the greatest conceived. 

Another thinker who also thought along similar lines as Anselm, was Descartes, just as Anselm did, he also believed that existence was a predicate that belonged to God. It was part of God’s tautology and if the atheist disagreed with the concept then he or she would be rejecting something that cannot be. However, unlike Anselm, Descartes postulated that God was an all perfect being and infinitely superior to all beings in terms of perfection. Descartes was a rationalist thinker and so he concluded that God’s existence was part of his essence, and that there were some features that an object must have, otherwise it would not be that object, he used the analogy of a triangle to portray this. According to Descartes to state that a triangle does not have three sides is the equivalent of declaring that God did not exist, it was a nonsensical claim and in Descartes’ eyes, existence cannot be separated from God. In which case, the atheist is forced to agree with this, as due to tautology a triangle must have three sides, and if God is all perfect he must exist, as existing is better than not existing. The a priori statements within the ontological argument are what propel the atheist to question their own beliefs. 

However, these older forms of the ontological argument are not the only ones that argue for the existence of a God, contemporary arguments come from several thinkers, two of which are Plantinga and Norman Malcolm. Their equally logically deductive arguments, make it hard for the atheist to dispute. For instance, Malcolm demonstrates why there are only two options for God, either he would be impossible or he would have a necessary existence. Taking a rendition of Anselm’s definition, Malcolm stated that God is ‘that that which nothing greater can be thought’, thus he must be all perfect, and so possess a necessary existence, this eliminates the chances of God being contingent, so the alternative is a necessary existence. To have a necessary existence, it must state that God exist, and it would be self contradictory for a necessary being to not exist. As of consequence, the only logical conclusion is that God must exist. Unless the atheist argues otherwise, they will be trapped in a sea of self-contradictions and therefore, they should accept the reality of what the argument provides. 

On the other hand, Plantinga offers something else to the atheist, written in the form of a modal argument, his form of the ontological argument does still remain logically analytical and the a priori statements, again make it hard to dispute because they do not contradict each other. Plantinga argued that God was both maximally excellent and great, and therefore there must be a possible world where there exists this transcendent being. This is all because it is more perfect to exist than not, and if God can exist in one world, then perhaps it is possible for God to exist in more, because existing in more than one world is better and more maximally excellent. As of such, Plantinga demonstrates the possibility of a God existing in our own world, because it would be more maximally great for God to exist in our world than to not. With his argument, it does build upon one statement after the other and therefore highlights that it is very much possible that there is a God rather than not. 

To conclude, it is justified to observe that if the atheist disagrees with the ontological argument and its attempt to prove God, that they fall into pitfall of looking like a fool who believes in self contradictions. It is also interesting to note that most if not all of the ontological arguments rely on a singular definition of what God is, and must be agreed and accepted by theists, agnostics and atheists alike. These are the ways in which the ontological argument attempts to prove to the atheist that God exists. 

(ii) 

The ontological argument may have its strengths within its a priori proofs and the way in which the premises lead to a logically analytical conclusion, but this does not mean that it is not privy to criticisms. In fact, there are some that would suggest that despite the argument’s attempt to move the atheist, the weaknesses of the argument support a campaign for atheism. 

Anselm’s first argument states that ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, yet this statement did not bode well for some critics. Ironically, the criticism would come from a theist rather than an atheist, and so some would argue that if a theist could find fault with the argument, then it must surely demonstrate that the argument is lacklustre. Gaunilo, was a religious monk and he accused Anselm of jumping from a definition to existence, otherwise known as a ‘transitional error.’ To prove his point further, Gaunilo replaced the word God with the world island, whilst still retaining the previous structure of the argument, he claimed that a perfect island must exist if it had all perfections. Gaunilo wished to demonstrate that even if the a priori premises are true, which were previously a strength of the argument, it did not mean that the conclusion was valid. 

As of consequence, Anselm argued in rebuttal to Gaunilo, commenting that the monk had misunderstood his argument and that it would be mistaken to compare an island to God, simply because the island had a contingent existence, in contrast to God’s own necessary existence. Therefore, Anselm was in the right for structuring his argument the way he had. However, in doing so, both Anselm and Descartes (also defined God), had directly attributed God to existence. 

This would be where the main thrust of the criticisms would attack, many argued against what these thinkers believed, and Kant especially argued against Descartes notion of existence as a predicate that was necessary reject its three angles, but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles.’ The claim represents the fact that it would be contradictory for the atheist to state that God was no all perfect, but it would not be self contradictory if the atheist rejected God altogether. With this in mind, the problem encountered by the atheist is therefore avoided and furthermore, Kant’s disagreement with the ontological argument also revolves around the fact that he believed that existence and the definition of something do not go together, especially if the predicate did not add to the understanding of the thing, in this context: God. 

Although we can find many benefits to the structure of the ontological argument and why the theist would argue that its a priori statements and logically deductive premises are a strength of the argument. There are others than declare these to be flaws of the argument, and Bertrand Russell would dictate the rulings for why. Russell was a supporter of Kant, and as the latter stated that the ontological argument was weak because it was adapted so that existence was a predicate, Russell developed Kant’s argument further. Russell noted that existence was not a predicate but rather a term that indicated God had a place in a patio-temporal world, nothing more and nothing less. Furthermore, although the ontological argument may be logically deductive, grammatical structure did not dictate that an argument would be logically reasonable. An argument could be followed logically but could result in an absurd conclusion. Therefore Russell is warning individuals that in order to trust a claim it must have active evidence and reasoning. Something which can not be seen in the ontological argument. 

Therefore, to conclude, I must agree with the reasoning of the atheists and critics of the ontological argument, and comment that the weaknesses of the ontological argument do give support to atheism; however, this does not mean that the argument itself is not significant in modern day. It is still a major part of philosophy and will remain so.