Anselm differentiates between the existence of God and the existence of anything else. All physical existence is contingent; it relies on something else for its existence. Whereas Anselm argued that God is not reliant on anything for his existence as he has no start or end and can exist independently without any cause. This difference is important as in Anselm’s second form he argues that if God is unsurpassable in all ways then he must be necessary by definition and therefore God exists, necessarily. Anselm claims that the definition of God recognised by all would include existence and so God must exist as the concept of God includes existence. Existence is a predicate of, or an intrinsic attribute of God.
The argument has similarities to that of Plato as it looks at the issue of perfection. Plato called these perfect abstract versions “forms”. Anselm only looks at the perfection of God, rather than that of objects. As God is perfect he is an ideal representation of a being and in order to be ideal he must, according to ontological philosophers, exist. Descartes also an ontological philosopher had a similar approach claiming that as good is perfection, and existence is a perfection, God must exist. Again he applied the idea of existence being a predicate of God. As before, we see a logical inductive argument develop using reason to come to a conclusion. Without God perfection is impossible as he is the source of perfection, according to the ontological argument. Modern philosophers have had different takes on the argument. Malcolm for instance argued for instance that the existence of God was either necessary or impossible and that as it is clear that his existence is not impossible so it therefore must be necessary. Plantinga again thought along similar asking assessors of his argument to imagine a different world totally independent of ours and asked them whether on that world it would be impossible for God to exist and if God exists he must have always existed on that world without cause or influence. This is again using deductive reasoning. Then he asked them to apply this argument to our own world and claimed this proved the existence of God, as his existence is not impossible.
God’s existence can never be proved by logic, discuss. (10 marks)
The ontological argument is focussed entirely that God does exist without doubt, and this is one of the most vital flaws to the argument. The argument cuts corners where it over relies on pure logic in order to prove its own argument rather than following a purely logical path or a purely reasoned one. The mix of the two is engineered to fit with the bias of the argument. The argument for example jumps from claiming that anything is better in reality than in the imagination to claiming this proves the existence of God. To most people just because God is imagined as the most perfect being does nothing to prove he exists. Anselm and others such as Descartes claim that because God is perfect then he must exist. But God is only perfect in their imagination of him, this does not prove that he exists for he may well not, and it might be that despite the imaginations of ontological philosophers they may just be speculating. The major claim of the ontological argument is that existence and God are paired and are necessary for each other.
Gaunillo (a contemporary of Anselm), claimed that Anselm was wrong to claim that just because we see God as perfect and as things in reality are better than in the imagination that God must exist. Gaunillo used the example of an island that we can imagine that is perfect in all ways; this perfection doesn’t mean that the island exists. Although Gaunillo uses this as a criticism Anselm responded by saying that the existence of an island is contingent whereas the existence of God is necessary.
It was set out by Kant that it is quite possible to imagine a being that doesn’t exist, for example I may imagine a world class young talent in football, second to none who’s only aim in life is to represent Everton FC, but nevertheless no such player really exists. Just because somebody can imagine a perfect God doesn’t necessarily mean that he exists. Kant also responded to the ontological argument by saying that it would be wrong to deny that God as a concept doesn’t exist, due to its perfections this has to be correct, and to accept God and not his existence would be self-contradictory, but if you reject God then existence is irrelevant, for as a concept or literal being he has been rejected. Another criticism of Anselm’s argument was that his primary step of defining God was flawed; it is argued that definition comes through experience and without any physical experience of God how can anyone define God. Also if God is perfect in all ways how can he be comprehended or described by humans? But this could also be used as an argument for a strength of the argument, as recognition of our finite knowledge would explain the difference between our type of existence and his. As outlined by Malcolm it is illogical to deny that God must either exist or not exist. If God exists then by definition he must always have existed and is therefore necessary rather than contingent, if he does not exist he will never exist and has never existed so therefore his existence becomes impossible. Malcolm said that as it would be wrong to say God is impossible he must be necessary. This seems a very reasonable point. But it is argued that there is an alternative that is not explored by Malcolm, what if God just “might” exist. Malcolm ignores this as a possibility, claiming that existence or non-existence are the only options.
Weighed up the ontological argument does have its strengths but equally des have weaknesses. Its employment of logic works highly effectively logically explaining the existence of God. But definitions and assumptions of God can be argued which significantly weakens the argument. Overall it must be said that the bias of the argument is obvious and influences the argument so much that at times it makes unreasonable assumptions thus weakening its argument.
