Ontological Argument

Ontology

Ontology

• Concerns existence

• Ontology explores what it means for something to exist and the different way things can exist

• The ontological argument explores the nature of God's existence

The Ontological Argument

• The ontological argument focuses on using logic and reason to demonstrate the existence and nature of God -> certain traits for the Christian God are logically necessary

• Using logical necessity and reason attempts to reveal the nature of God and God's existence as logically interlinked

• The idea that certain concepts have associated factors that are logically necessary as part of that concept

What is meant by 'necessity' 

• Analytic statement are statements which are necessarily true because the predicate is included in the subject. To determine their truth, we have to learn more about what the subject word means.

• So to determine whether "all spinsters are female" is true we would have to find out how the word "spinster/female" is defined 

• The Ontological Argument maintains that 'God exists' is an analytic statement 

• It cannot fail to be true 

• What is the definition of God? 

• God is de re necessary, God is factually necessary without dependence and without beginning or end, God is necessary in himself 

• To have existence is better than not to have existence 

• The Ontological Argument effectively starts with the claim that God is de dicto (how we understand the meaning of the word) necessary 

• God cannot exist - it is logical nonsense to say that God does not exist since once we have understood what the word God means we could not fail to see that God exists 

• However, the argument seeks to move from God's de dicto necessity to God's de re necessity 

• Is this a problem? 

Anselm

Anselm's Ontological Argument 

• Anselm (1033-1109) was the Archbishop of Canterbury and a monk 

• He wanted to explore the nature of God to better understand God, logically 

• He uses the idea of imagination and argued that if we can imagine the greatest thing ever we can imagine God 

 

Anselm's First Argument 

P1 – God is that which nothing greater can be thought 

P2 – A real, existent being would be greater than one imagined 

C1 – Therefore the concept of God is surpassed by an actual existent God 

P3 – God is that which nothing greater can be thought 

P4 – Because God is unsurpassable in every way, God must have necessary existence 

C2– Therefore God exists necessarily 

 

Valid – the conclusion logically follows on from the premises 

Sound – the premises are true 

 

Analytic Propositions 

• A statement which is true by definition e.g. a bachelor is an unmarried man 

• These statements don't need to be tested 

• Anselm argues that the statement 'God exists' is the same. The concept of God includes the concept of existence 

 

Synthetic Propositions 

• Add something beyond the definition or use of the word. Something that relies, generally, on experience 

• 'All Chelsea players are amazing at football' 

• It could be true or false 

• The definition of a Chelsea player does not necessitate they were amazing at football 

 

Analytic and Synthetic - Evaluation 

• Does Anselm make a synthetic or analytic proposition in his first and third premises? 

• If it is synthetic, he needs to provide proof that God exists 

• Anselm tries to make an argument from analytic propositions with premise one and three, but fails because these are synthetic propositions with no evidence to prove them 

Gaunilo’s Criticism

Gaunilo's Perfect Island 

• Gaunilo, a French monk, disagreed with Anselm 

• We could imagine the most amazing island possible 

• According to Anselm's logic, this island must exists, otherwise it wouldn't be the perfect island 

• But clearly, no such island exists in reality 

• Highlights flaw of Anselm's first premise 

• Absurdity of Anselm's argument – just imagining something doesn't mean it exists 

• Conceiving into existence 

 

Gaunilo's Perfect Island 

1. It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which nothing greater can be imagined 

2. A piland exists as an idea in the mind 

3. A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is greater than a piland that exists only as an idea in the mind 

4. Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is greater than a piland 

5. But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland 

C – Therefore, a piland exists 

 

Anselm's reply 

• Anselm replies by sticking to his guns 

• He argues that Gaunilo is wrong in the case of the island for an island has a contingent existence 

• Whereas God has a necessary existence 

• The ontological argument only works when applied to God because of the uniqueness of God 

 

• Island and God incomparable – God's qualities have maximum's whereas there is no definitive maximum to fruit bearing etc, not the same properties 

  • Subjective vs objective perfection 

   

Begs the question – assumes God's existence is necessary 

• Reiterates conclusion 

• No logical reasoning 

 

Potential category mistake – tries to make God's existence a logical necessity, doesn't play by same logical rules 

Kant’s Criticism

Kant 

• Kant was an eighteenth century German philosopher and seen as one of the most influential philosophers during the Enlightenment period 

• The Enlightenment presented a shift in academic thought to a greater focus on reason, science, individualism and challenged the traditional authority of the church 

• Sceptical of any argument attempting to prove the existence of God 

 

Kant's argument 

• Kant criticised the ontological argument stating that existence is not a predicate 

• A predicate gives us some information about an object of subject 

• 'The exam was difficult', 'The artist is talented' 

• Predicates add some information, but existence is not the same as a predicate...it doesn't give us any new information 

 

• Kant takes Anselm's idea of conceiving 'the greatest being possible' and Descartes' 'the sum of all perfections' and suggests gives us a particular concept 

• But adding 'existence' to that concept does not mean it exists 

• We can conceive of a unicorn and add existence to the concept, but this does not mean it really exists 

• What we can conceive of is not the same as what exists 

• Treats a synthetic proposition – God's existence - like an analytic proposition without evidence of necessary predicates 

 

Responses to Kant 

• An argument in rebuttal to Kant may be that he is comparing things that exist contingently with something that exists necessarily – God 

• Norman Malcolm argues this and highlights that necessary existence is a predicate because God is unique to all else...just as God's characteristics of omnibenevolence, omniscience etc distinguish him 

  • Is this new information? Double's down on Anselm's argument -> conception of God still doesn’t necessitate his existence 

Descartes’ Ontological Argument

Descartes' Ontological Argument 

• A priori, rationalist perspective  

• Existence is part of the definition of God 

• He compared describing God to describing a triangle...part of describing a triangle correctly is that its angles add up to 180 degrees 

• Part of the essence of a triangle is that it had three sides 

• Part of the existence of God is being perfect 

• Because God is perfect and existence is part of being perfect, God therefore exists 

 

P - God is perfect 

P - Perfection requires existence 

C - God exists  

 

Descartes concedes that what we can imagine does not necessarily exist 

P – I have an idea of supremely perfect being i.e. a being having all perfections 

P - Necessary existence is a perfection 

C - Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists 

 

Critiques 

• Hinges on belief that existence is necessary for perfection 

• Requires acceptance of definition of God as perfect 

• Possible category error in comparing God to triangle 

• Assumes God exists before argument begins 

Hick’s Criticism

Ontological Necessity 

• John Hick argues that a priori arguments cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of God 

• Hick expands on Kant and Gaunilo's objections that the ontological argument relies on a missing premise verifying God's existence 

• God's existence would only be determined through ontological necessity 

• If God does exist it follows logically that God would exist in a necessary way rather than a contingent way 

• But this is all the ontological argument demonstrates 

• This links to Hick's focus on faith to justify belief not a posteriori or a priori arguments -> belief in God can't be demonstrated rationally or empirically  

 

• Conceding something to demonstrate wider flaw -> accepts if God were to exist, he would be different/distinct from us, necessary existence, omnipotence etc 

• All argument demonstrates is ontological necessity, not that God exists 

• e.g. 'a bachelor is an unmarried man' doesn't provide synthetic information about whether/how many bachelors exist 

The Ontological Argument and Epistemic Distance

• Some argue the ontological argument is not designed to be a 'proof' for the existence of God 

• Anselm designed the argument to give those with belief a further understanding of the nature of God 

• But the logical proof will not necessarily work unless someone already believes for there must be some degree of faith 

• God should be mysterious and theologians point out there will always be epistemic distance between us and God 

• Meaning there is a limit to the degree of understanding we can have of God hence the importance of faith 

Evaluating a-priori arguments

• Rely on logical reasoning 

• Their arguments need to pass philosophical tests of validity and soundness 

• The premises need to be true and the reasoning sound 

• The advantage of a priori arguments is they can lead to logically definitive 

• Ontological is logically valid, but it's premises are not sound 

• A posteriori arguments only indicate probability 

 

• Expanding on Kant's objection to the ontological argument, we can suggest that it falls into a category error in attempting to describe God with the term existence 

• 'Existence' is not a descriptive quality which can be ascribed to someone, so it is a category error 

• “It is easier to feel convinced that [the Ontological Argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.” – Bertrand Russell

A priori vs a posteriori

A priori - Pros

• If premises are correct, conclusion can be asserted confidently, logical necessity 

• Objective 

• Less susceptible to being clouded by sensory experiences 

• Absolute + universal truths, unchanging 

• Harder to dispute 

A priori - Cons

• Can be impractical in the physical world  

• Sometimes impossible to improve premise is true -> information may not give capacity to form inductive argument 

• Whole argument undermined if one premise is faulty/uncertain  

A posteriori - Pros

• Evidence based, rooted in world around us, rather than abstract concepts 

• Probability -> argument can be compelling e.g. surgery completed on 1000 people, they all succeed, can be confident the next surgery will also be successful -> we put a lot of faith in probability  

A posteriori - Cons

• Experience can be deceptive/subjective 

• No complete certainty  

• Limited perspective – only experience small part of reality, hard to make judgements about whole world 

• Generalisations may not be applicable 

Logical Fallacies

Bare assertion (ipse dixit) - Assertion without proof, or a dogmatic expression of opinion

• “God is that which nothing greater can be thought”

Fallacy of equivocation - Failure to define one's terms

• “Necessary” is ambiguous

• Is he referring to de re or de dicto necessity?