The argument was next revised by Rene Descartes in the 17th century. He took a different approach to Anselm, by arguing that God, as the most perfect being imaginable would have to have all perfections possible; existence being a key one.
Using an analogy of a triangle, Descartes said, in Meditations, that although an actual triangle does not have to exist, the mention of a triangle gives the image of a shape with 3 sides and angles totalling 180°. In a similar way, the idea of God gives the image of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being – in short, the God of modern theism. It would be impossible for a God like this to not exist, he argues; it would be a contradiction to think of perfection, but then to deny this perfection exists. Descartes himself calls God the “sum of all perfections,” in response to his comments, and counters some of the criticisms that may be proposed by his critics.
More recently, Norman Malcolm has re-explored the argument, saying that God could either have come into existence, and not be a necessary being, therefore not God, or He could have always existed, and therefore be God. Using this argument, Keith Ward argued that God’s existence is either a certainty or impossible. Following on from Malcolm’s argument, Hick comments that “If God exists, then God exists necessarily. The problem is, is that there is no way to get rid of the ‘if’”.
To what extent, if any, is this argument a proof for the existence of God? (14 marks.
Although it has been around for hundreds of years, it would not be fair to say that the Ontological Argument is not without its criticisms.
After being published in Proslogium, a fellow monk, Gaunilo, criticised Anselm, by using the image of the perfect island, which must exist, according to Anselm. Accepting this criticism led Anselm to his second formulation of what is now known as the Ontological Argument. However, Anselm never intended to write an argument for the existence of God; Proslogium was a prayer or a meditation, and it was only Gaunilo’s criticisms that led Anselm to revise his work.
From this, it could be debated whether the Ontological Argument, as written by Anselm actually qualifies as an argument. Since his intention was never to use it for the purposes of proving God’s existence, it could be argued that, according to the question, the argument is not a proof.
However, this did not stop someone like Kant, writing a few hundred years ago, from criticising Descartes’ version of the argument. His arguments varied, yet they are all considered to effectively refute the Ontological Argument.
Kant’s criticisms are contained in his work, Critique of Pure Reason. They are directed towards Descartes, but the objections contained in them apply equally as well to Anselm. A being has formal existence if it is both conceived of in the mind, and exists physically; if it exists only in a conception of the mind, then its existence is intentional. Kant argues that existence is not a property or predicate that can be attributed to anything; he argues that saying something exists is not ascribing an attribute to something; it is just confirming its reality. A predicate is an attribute or property that a subject holds, such as “the boy is tall.” Here, “boy” is the subject, and “tall” is the predicate. Kant also says that the only difference between a fictional item and a real one is reality; which cannot be added or removed at will to an object, as other predicates can be. No matter how many predicates are added to something that does not exist, it would not cause it to exist. Markam wrote that, whilst you can keep adding predicates to a dream sports car, such as speakers or engine size, you cannot add that it does, or doesn’t exist, just as you can keep describing Winne the Pooh, but he will never physically exist.
Kant’s objection for a necessary being is that, although to say that God exists but He is not necessary is self-contradictory, God can have His existence denied, along with His necessity, without any contradiction.
However, Descartes has already dealt with Kant’s objection; Descartes said that God, by the definition of a perfect and necessary being, must exist. If Kant was objecting over a contingent being, then his objection would stand. Kant’s final condemnation is that the ontological argument is a tautology; proving only to the extent that it has already assumed.
Kant, writing in Critique of Pure Reason, says:
The attempt to establish the existence of a supreme being by the famous Ontological Argument of Descartes is therefore merely so much labour and effort lost; we can no more extent our stock of [theoretical] insight by mere ideas, than a merchant can better his position by adding a few noughts to his account.
Others, like Russell, say that existence is not a property of something; one cannot add or remove existence at will from something, just as one could not add or remove colour from a painting. Joining Russell, Frege says that there is confusion between the synthetic and analytic statements that are put forward.
Writing recently, Findlay says that, whilst Kant’s arguments are good, they are not fully developed. Instead of arguing against God, Kant’s arguments allow for the creation of a formal dis-proof of God’s existence. He says that a contingent being would not deserve worship; a necessary being is a logical absurdity. Only necessary being/s can be the object of religious devotion; necessary existence cannot be attributed to an actual existing God, therefore, God cannot exist. Summing up, he says:
It was indeed an ill day for Anselm when he hit upon his famous proof. For on that day, he not only laid bare something that is of the essence of an adequate religious object, but also something that entails its necessary nonexistence.
There is one further possibility to the solution of this question; the question of whether or not it is ever possible to prove conclusively something’s existence. It could be argued that, as an a priori argument, the Ontological Argument is not suited to prove the existence of anything; existence requires investigation, which falls out of the scope of an a priori argument, which is the main point of the Ontological Argument.
Therefore, I believe that it is clear to see that the argument has sustained so many criticisms that it cannot be counted as a proof for God, per se, but instead an argument for His existence.