Decartes, who is a supporter of the Ontological argument, continued Anslem’s ideas. He says that by the word God we mean a supremely perfect being. He is a very important person and does not have any flaws. You cannot improve on perfection. For God to lack existence, it would mean that God is lacking perfection and that cannot be the case. In his book, Meditation, Decartes wrote that there are some qualities that an object necessarily had. He stated that existence is a necessary part of the existence of God. Just like a triangle needs to have three sides, God needs to have existence. Decartes saw existence as perfection and therefore God must have all the perfections including existence. If we tried to imagine God without existence it would be illogical. We cannot separate existence from the essence of God.
Malcolm said that God’s existence was necessary, just like Anslem because he is the “greatest conceivable being”, he is also a non contingent being that exists outside of time and space. He also agreed with Anslem and said that if God did not exist then nothing can cause his existence. This would mean that God did not have necessary existence. He would not be perfect or “that than which nothing greater can be conceived, “because something would have been able to have created and destroy him. He said that God’s existence is either necessary or impossible. You cannot say that God exists then say that it is impossible because you would be contradicting yourself. If God exists is logically necessary God does not exist would be self contradictory, there is a God because we need him./ However, he said that Gods existence might be factually necessary, it is not impossible for there to be no God. Because we haven’t got any firm evidence, it is all down to interpretations.
Alvin Plantinga said that there was a possibility of us experiencing other possible worlds. He says that the way in which our lives might turn out, could turn out a different way. The possibilities in our world are infinite. We could go to university, be unemployed win the lottery etc. Alvin Plantinga said that in every possible world, exists a being with maximal greatness. However, this being might not be God; it may be a singer or a football player. For it to be referred to as God, Alvin Plantinga refers to maximal excellence, because maximal excellence includes maximal greatness. Maximal excellence is simply someone being omnipotent, omniscience and having moral perfection.
- “The ontological argument is of little value in the attempt to0 prove the existence of God”
Evaluate this contention.
10 marks
There are many philosophers who raise issues and object to the other philosopher’s ways that God does exist. God himself raises many problems over the way that he is supposed to be in existence and the powers that he is supposed to have. Critical analysis is necessary in this case to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the view.
Anslem says that an apriori argument requires no necessary experience and that the way in which Anslem was putting his idea across only appeals to the initially religious despite it not being his full intention. He says that there is no need to prove that God exists or have any variable evidence proving it.
Kant then went on to say that existence s not a predicate because it does not tell us fully about the object in question. He believes that something is not greater by adding reality to it. If you believe in God then if is logical to believe that he has necessary existence, but you don’t not have to accept the existence of God. For example, if you say that wind exists then you have to believe it because we need it to survive, but if you say that God exists then it can be challenged because we cannot come up with a valid reason to why his existence is necessary.
Gaunilo said that you can use the example of the most perfect island. He said that even though he could conclude the image in his mind, it would be absurd to say that you can form that perfect island in reality. You would always be adding to it and changing things to make it a perfect island. He said that is you were to believe that you could create such an island then you would be a fool to believe it.
Aquinas went on to say that what Decartes said was absurd because he thinks that we cannot know Gods essence- what god is all about. We do not know what the word “God” means because no-one really knows if his existence is true. He said that the only way people will believe in God is if they could actually see him, and deduce from seeing him that he caused them. He believes that it is a posterior argument.
Gettlob Frege said that Gods existence is a second order predicate, and he objects Anslem’s claim that it is a first order predicate. He says that it is a second order predicate because it is telling us something about the concept and it is expanding further than the first order predicate.
Russell says that existence is not a predicate but a syllogism. He says that if you put the first and second order predicate together then you come up with the syllogism which gives you more information about the object.
Finally David Hume says that nothing could ever be proven to exist through an apriori argument including God himself. You cannot define something into existence, even if it has all the perfections that we could ever imagine. You have to get outside the concept of something to say whether it fully exists or not.
Overall, the ontological argument does not seem to be successful. This may be down to the fact that the definitions of God are very limited and we do not fully know the true meaning of him. We are very limited to out terms in the way in which we should imagine or be describing God.
