A)

Analyze the distinctive features of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God (18) Discuss the view that the Ontological Argument is obviously incorrect as an argument (12)
a)

B)

The Ontological Argument is an a priori argument which attempts to prove Gods existence. Ontology literally means concerned with being. It is also a reduction ad absurdum argument which shows that the existence of God could not be denied because to do so would involve adopting a nonsensical argument. This deductive type of argument attempts to show that the very being or concept of God implies his existence in reality. The Ontological Argument is one of five classical arguments for the existence of God. It moves from a definition of God as being that than which nothing greater can be conceived to a proof of God, using a priori logic. It was formulated primarily by St. Anselm (1033-1109), but remains a relevant philosophical discussion today.The argument states that firstly, nothing greater than God can be conceived and secondly, it is greater to exist than not to exist. Thirdly states that if we conceive of God as not existing,

then we can conceive of something greater than God (God existing) and fourthly that to conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God. Fifthly states that it is inconceivable that God doesnt exist and lastly

therefore God exists. Anselm set out to show that not believing in God is an absurd position to hold. . It is better to exist in the mind and in reality than to just exist in the
mind .Existence is a predicate of perfection. Therefore God must exist in reality. The fool says in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14) despite accepting the argument if you understand the definition of God, you cant deny that God

Anselm stated that even an atheist must have a definition of God because even the suggestion that God does not exist requires the concept of God. It seemed logical to conclude that to argue that there is no God, even the fool must understand the concept of God. Since the greatest thought must have an equivalent reality to be greater than even the least significant thing in reality for God to be the greatest thought, God must exist. Anselm went on to prove that God must exist in reality too since he exists in our thoughts. Anselm used the analogy of how a painter imagines beforehand what he wants to paint. The painter has in his understanding what he has not yet made but does not yet understand that it is. After he finishes painting it, he has it both in his understanding and his thoughts and knows it exists. Gaunilo responded to Anselms first attempt by stating that Just because we can
exists.

conceive a perfect island, doesnt mean such a place exists, this is absurd. The fool is right to demand proof that God is in fact, and not just by definition, the greatest conceivable being.Anselm stated in

response that there are necessary beings things that cannot not exist and

contingent beings- things that may exist but whose existence is not needed. Anselm stated his argument doesnt apply to islands since islands are contingent and God is necessary, something which cannot be conceived as not existing is greater than something than can. Therefore according to Anselm God is a necessary being who must exist, he presented the argument as a part of a prayer directed to God. It is necessary to assume something which is necessary of itself, and has no cause of its necessity outside itself but rather is the cause of necessity in other things. And this all men call God. Quoted Aquinas. Descartes composed a number of Ontological arguments that differed from Anselms. He defined God as a Supreme perfect being which possess all perfections. This perfect state must include existence. Descartes believed we can conclude that God exists because existence is a predicate of a perfect being; therefore God must exist to avoid being self-contradictory. Descartes claims that trying to imagine God without the predicate of existence is illogical, like imagining a triangle without 3 sides that add up to 180 therefore God exists. Philosophers who opposed the argument were Kant and Hume. Kant responded to Descartes stating if you have a triangle , then it must have

three sides however , if you do not have the triangle , you have neither its three sides nor its three degrees. Hence if there is no perfection there is no existing God. Additionally he argued that if one accepts that there is a God its reasonable to accept his existence. However, one does not have to accept that there is a perfect being therefore one does not have to accept the existence of a perfect being. Kant distinguished between analytic and synthetic statements. Necessity is about logic, whereas existence is about experience. He also argued that adding reality to a concept does not make it any better , existence is not a predicate. Hume argued that the description of one can only contain every detail possible but we must go beyond the description itself to conclude whether it exists or not. A thing cannot be defined into existence- no matter how perfect it may be imagined to be. He stated that all the Ontological argument does is place Gods existence in philosophically rational terms if he did exist. Since the argument has its defenders and critisizems modern philosophers like Norman Malcolm and Alvin Platinga reformulated the argument in an attempt to revive it. Malcolm agreed that existence should not be used as a predicate as Anselm did in his first attempt in the prosologion 2 but stated that in

prosologion 3 Anselm does not treat existence as a predicate. Malcolm stresses that Anselm says that God must exist because the concept of God is the concept of a being whose existence is necessary. He further stated that either God has always existed or that he does not exist at all. If he did not always exist it would mean that he had been created and therefore there was someone more powerful than him and that being would be God. Hence he argued that Gods existence is either impossible or necessary. Gods existence could only be impossible if his descriptions were self contradictory and since the descriptions of God are not self contradictory or logically impossible, God necessarily exists. Platinga argued that there is an infinite number of possible worlds and that the possible differences within these worlds would be infinite. He claimed that in one possible world there exists a being with maximal greatness. He then concluded that this being only has maximal greatness if he exists in all possible worlds. Additionally there were modern philosophers who were against the Ontological argument for instance Bertrand Russell. He agreed with Anselms statement that God is the greatest thing we can think of but he opposed the conclusion that Anselms statement proves

Gods existence because one cant think nor argue something into existence. Syllogisms may seem to prove something but they do not. Russell noted that the argument does not , to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find precisely where the fallacy lies. Brian Davies opposed Malcolms argument, he claimed that the argument basically says God is necessary therefore God is. He argues against this by saying that the word is can be used in two different ways:- to define something and to state the existence of something. The first usage says nothing about existence but explains what a word or concept means. The second usage does not define anything and merely supposes existence. He criticizes Malcolms argument for moving from definition of God to Gods existence as a definition. The distinctive features of the Ontological argument is the fact that it is an a priori argument and therefore the conclusion is logically necessary leading it to be very good proof for the existence of God as many accept it. Also the fact that the argument has the starting point which is valid for both believers and atheists with the definition of God. It

b) Overall, the Ontological Argument seems to obviously be incorrect and unsuccessful due to the fact that the weaknesses in it are greater than the strengths. For starters definitions are limiting by nature making it impossible to define God. We can say what we mean about something without it actually existing. One cannot define a thing into existence. As infinite beings we cannot define God, nor can we perceive of perfection. We cannot conceive of things we did not experience. As Kant responded to Descartes argument, if there is no triangle there are no 3 sides or any degrees so if there is no perfection God does not exist. Apparently perfection does not exist in our world so God cannot exist.. Even if we could perceive of perfection that would not mean that God necessarily existed. There are problems with the definition of perfection, which is subjective and there are problems with saying that existence is part of perfection. Saying one exists does not add any value to the understanding of one as Kant argued. According to Russell the argument is a Syllogism it starts off with reasonable premises and attempt to prove something which one cannot actually prove. The argument more or less claims that since God exists in our thoughts he must exist in reality as an even more perfect being.

However, if so why are there no unicorns and fairies since they exist in our thoughts too.. All that can be concluded from this argument is that God exists in our imagining and is totally subjective since he will be a different concept for different people. The argument states that it is better to exist than not to exist however, is it actually better? Not all things which exist are good. It is not better that evil exists nor do everyone want to exist. The Argument also states that God is perfect therefore he has to exist however, the connection between existence and perfection is problematic because everything that exists is flawed. It is almost the reverse that is true: non existence is more perfect than actual existence. In conclusion, the Ontological argument is incorrect since it fails to prove Gods existence. The argument has too many flaws even though it starts off with logical and acceptable premises. Not all can conceive of God, some may know the concept of God yet not believe God exists. Since we are imperfect we cannot expect God to exist because the definition we gave him requires his existence. We have no right to talk about perfection since none of us ever experienced supreme perfection so we cannot come to a conclusion that perfection requires existence.