The Ontological Argument

A*/A Summary Notes

What type of argument is Anselm’s ontological argument?

It is a deductive and a priori argument.

• A priori = based on reason/definition, not observation

• Deductive = if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
  It attempts to prove God’s existence purely through analysing the concept of God.

How does Anselm use the painter analogy?

Anselm argues that a painter first has an idea of a painting in the mind before it exists in reality.
This helps him distinguish between:

• existing in the mind alone (in intellectu)

• existing in reality as well (in re)

Why does Anselm reference Psalm 14:1 (“the fool says… there is no God”)?

He uses it to argue that even an atheist (“the fool”) must still have an idea of God in their mind in order to deny God.
So God exists at least as a concept in the understanding.

What is Anselm’s argument in Proslogion Chapter 2 (standard form)?

P1: God is the greatest conceivable being (definition)
P2: It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone
P3: God exists in the mind
C: Therefore, God exists in reality

If God existed only in the mind, we could conceive something greater (God + real existence), which contradicts P1.

Why does Anselm claim God cannot exist “only in the mind”?

Because that would mean God is not maximally great.
If God exists only mentally, then a greater being could be conceived:

• the same being existing in reality
  This would contradict the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being.

What is Anselm’s argument in Proslogion Chapter 3?

Anselm develops the argument using necessity:
P1: A necessary being (cannot not exist) is greater than a contingent being (can fail to exist).
C: Therefore, God necessarily exists.

This is stronger because it links God’s greatness to necessary existence.

How does Malcolm interpret Anselm’s use of “greater”?

Malcolm argues “greater” refers to being less limited.
Contingent beings are limited because they depend on other things.
God must be:

• unlimited

• non-dependent

• not contingent
  So God’s non-existence must be impossible.

What is Anselm’s final conclusion in response to critics?

Anselm claims:

• If such a being (the greatest conceivable being) is logically possible, then it must exist.

Because a “greatest conceivable being” that does not exist would be incoherent.

What is Gaunilo’s “lost island” objection?

Gaunilo argues Anselm’s logic proves too much.
If we define the “greatest possible island,” then:

• it must exist in reality (because existence is “greater”)
  But this is absurd — we clearly can’t define things into existence.
  So Gaunilo claims Anselm’s reasoning is invalid.

What is Gaunilo trying to prove with the lost island objection?

He is trying to show the ontological argument is not valid deductive reasoning, because applying the same logic leads to absurd conclusions.
So he attacks the idea that the conclusion truly follows from the premises.

How does Anselm respond to Gaunilo’s lost island objection?

Anselm argues the argument only works for God, not islands.
An island is always contingent by definition:

• land enclosed by water

• depends on external conditions
  So no island can be necessary or “maximally great” in the same way God can.

Why does Anselm think a priori reasoning only works for God, not islands?

Because contingent things depend on external conditions to exist, so their existence can’t be deduced from definitions.
You can’t know a priori whether the required conditions exist.
But a necessary being doesn’t depend on anything external, so its existence can be argued from concept alone.

What is Gaunilo’s critique that “God is beyond our understanding”?

Gaunilo objects to the claim that God exists in the mind (P3).
If God is beyond human understanding, then we don’t truly have the concept of God in our minds, so Anselm’s argument cannot begin.

How does Anselm respond to “God is beyond understanding”?

He uses the sun analogy:

• We cannot look directly at the sun

• but we still see by its light
  Similarly, we may not fully understand God’s nature, but we can still grasp that God is the greatest conceivable being.

How does Plantinga’s “intrinsic maximum” idea support Anselm?

Plantinga suggests we can understand the idea of a hierarchy (like greatness) having a maximum point, even if we don’t fully comprehend what it is like.
So we only need to understand that God is the peak of the greatness scale.

Why is Gaunilo accused of a straw man regarding P3?

Because Anselm’s “in intellectu” means:
✅ “can be thought about / conceived”
NOT:
❌ “fully understood in detail”
So Gaunilo attacks a stronger claim than Anselm actually made.

What is Kant’s critique: “existence is not a predicate”?

Kant argues existence is not a property/quality that makes something greater.
A predicate describes what a thing is (e.g., round, shiny).
But “exists” does not add a feature — it just says the thing is real.

So Anselm’s claim that “existence makes something greater” is mistaken.

How does Kant use the “100 coins” example?

Kant says 100 real coins and 100 imagined coins have the same concept.
The real coins don’t contain an extra property called “existence.”
So existence cannot be used as a perfection that makes something greater.

Why does Kant’s predicate critique undermine Anselm’s argument?

Because Anselm relies on the premise:

• “It is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone.”

If existence isn’t a predicate/perfection, then this premise collapses.
So God’s existence can’t be deduced from the definition.

How does Descartes respond to Kant’s “existence is not a predicate” critique?

Descartes argues God’s existence is grasped by intuition, not by attaching predicates.
God is inseparable from existence like:

• a triangle is inseparable from having three sides
  So Kant’s critique doesn’t defeat Descartes’ version.

How does Malcolm defend Anselm against Kant?

Malcolm argues Kant is only right about contingent existence.

• contingent beings have external causes, so existence isn’t part of their definition
  But a necessary being contains the reason for existence within itself.
  So necessary existence can be treated as a defining property.

What is the evaluation of Kant’s predicate critique in your notes?

Kant mistakenly tests a necessary-being argument using contingent examples (coins/islands).
So Anselm/Descartes can still succeed if the argument is about necessary existence, not ordinary existence.

What is Kant’s critique: “necessity doesn’t imply existence”?

Kant argues that necessary truths are conditional:

• A triangle necessarily has three sides
  But this only means: if a triangle exists, it must have three sides.

Likewise:
Even if God is defined as necessarily existing, that only proves:
If God exists, then God exists necessarily
It does not prove God exists in the first place.

Why does Kant think Anselm confuses mental necessity with real existence?

Because you can have a necessary concept in the mind without it existing in reality.
Defining something as necessary doesn’t force it into existence — it just defines what it would be like if it existed.

How does Malcolm respond to Kant’s “necessity doesn’t imply existence”?

Malcolm argues that if God is truly necessary, then denying God’s existence is incoherent.
A necessary being must exist — otherwise it wouldn’t be necessary.

How does Hick defend Kant against Malcolm?

Hick argues that Anselm does not prove God is logically necessary.
He only proves a kind of “metaphysical” necessity:

• eternal

• non-dependent

• self-explaining (aseity)

But metaphysical non-contingency ≠ logical necessity.
So God could still fail to exist as a “sheer fact.”

What is the key distinction Hick makes about types of necessity?

• Logical necessity = denial is contradictory (like 1+1=2)

• Ontological/metaphysical necessity = special mode of existence (self-explaining)

Anselm needs logical necessity to prove God must exist, but only establishes metaphysical necessity.

What is the final exam conclusion suggested by your notes?

• If you include Hick’s objection (AO2 Paragraph 4): the ontological argument fails

• If you don’t include it: the ontological argument succeeds
  So the overall judgement depends on whether you accept Hick’s critique.

If a question is on Gaunilo, which Kant critique can you use?

You can only use Kant’s critique that develops Gaunilo (necessity doesn’t imply existence), because Kant’s argument strengthens Gaunilo’s point.

If a question is on Kant, which Gaunilo critique can you use?

You can use Gaunilo’s lost island, because it anticipates and connects to Kant’s criticism about existence/necessity.