Essay Plan

Overall argument: ontological arguments for the existence of god are overwhelmingly unsuccessful because of a flaw in all their reasoning. Whilst they have developed since Anselm’s ontological argument, all from Anselm, Descartes, Malcolm to Plantinga face crucial logical flaws and fail to respond to objections.

AO1: ontological arguments are a priori deductive arguments for the existence of god, based on the nature of reality and existence.

R - Most ontological arguments for the existence of god use a similar argument structure which is fundamentally flawed, highlighted here in Anselm’s argument for God

I - Anselm defines God as a being that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Based on this definition of God, Anselm produces an ontological argument for the existence of God

  1. God is a being that than which nothing greater can be conceived

  2. I can conceive of such a being

  3. To exist is greater than to not exist

  4. Therefore this being (as that than which nothing greater can be conceived) must exist

C - However, this argument specifically is undermined by Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ objection. Gaunilo asks us to imagine a perfect island, which could not be better. By the same logic as Anselm’s argument, this island must exist, because to exist is greater than to not exist. But we are well aware that such an island does not exist.

E - This objection highlights the issues in Anselm’s argument; just because we can conceive of something existing does not mean that it actually does. The objection could be expanded to an entire range of items (e.g. the perfect chocolate bar) but none of these things come into existence/exist and yet they are conceivable. By Anselm’s argument, you could prove that anything must exist. Thus, Anselm’s ontological argument for God is unsuccessful.

C - Gaunilo also points out another objection for Anselm’s argument, which crucially undermines ontological arguments as a whole. What we should actually be asking is ‘how great is the greatest conceivable being? If he doesn’t exist, he’s not that great at all’. Existence is limited by physical fact rather than just conceivability. Gaunilo has highlighted that what Anselm is essentially arguing is ‘God must exist if he exists’

E - Both of Gaunilo’s objections crucially undermine Anselm’s argument and the latter one (which was actually Gaunilo’s first objection) is especially crucial as it undermines ontology as a whole, highlighting why the inferences made in all the arguments are flawed.

R - Hume also critically objects to ontological arguments, and specifically their claims about what exists as relations of ideas rather than matters of fact.

I - Descartes argues that God, as a supremely perfect being, must have necessary existence. Descartes uses a similar structure to Anselm (God is a supremely perfect being, existence is a perfection, therefore God exists). However, he also claims that God exists necessarily - according to Descartes to say ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction in terms. The concept of God cannot be changed any more than the concept of a triangle can be.

C - However, Hume objects to this argument, highlighting the issues of arguments that claim necessary existence. If Descartes is claiming that ‘god does not exist’ is a contradiction in terms, then ‘god exists’ must be a relation of ideas. But, according to Hume’s fork, claims about what exists are always matters of fact. Similarly, Descartes is claiming that ‘God exists’ is an analytic claim but claims about existence are always synthetic.

E - Hume’s argument highlights a serious issue for ontological arguments, which try and use a claim of ‘necessary existence’ in order to prove the existence of God. Hume highlights that no being’s non-existence implies a contradiction: whatever we can conceive of as existing we can also conceive of as not existing.

R - Kant furthered this argument in highlighting why the use of existence is an issue in ontological arguments. A predicate is something which is confirmed or denied concerning the argument of a proposition. In the claim ‘x is red’, red acts as a predicate and it tells us more about the subject: the predicate unpacks the concept of X. Contrastingly, Kant argues that existence is not a predicate. Saying ‘x exists’ tells you nothing about what x is. Existence is not a concept which can be added on to another to create a richer idea - we can only verify existence through empiricism. This is an issue for ontological arguments which want to verify existence a priori deductively, rather than through empiricism.

I - However, Malcolm tries to object to Kant’s, claim, arguing that it doesn’t apply to God because God exists necessarily, which Malcolm argues unpacks the concept of God further. Malcolm argues that God exists necessarily because His existence cannot depend on anything else, it is part of the concept of God.

God either exists or does not exist

God cannot come into or go out of existence

Therefore if God exists, God exists necessarily or if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible

Therefore God exists necessarily or his existence is impossible

God’s existence can only be impossible if there is some contradiction in the concept of God

There is no contradiction in the concept of God

Therefore God’s existence is not impossible

Therefore God exists necessarily