Examine the major features of the ontological argument for the existence of God. (b) To what extent do the strengths of this argument overcome its weaknesses?

With Anslem’s definition it means that even an atheist must have a definition of God in order to dismiss it, thus God would still exist in Anselm’s world. So according to Anslem it is self-contradictory to conceive of something than which nothing greater can be thought and yet to deny that that something exists. The second stage is the idea that it is illogical to think God does not exist. This idea is that because the highest possible thought of God is the He exists, thus his existence is impossible. This is the concept of necessary existence, God cannot not exist, and something which has necessary existence is something that exists in all possible worlds. God is perceived to have necessary existence because God is eternal and created the world and He is not limited by time, as He is outside of it. Thus God must exist in reality.

Later in the 17th century Descartes developed the argument further, he used his form of the ontological argument to be a part of his argument that the external world exists. Descartes viewed God as a supremely perfect being, possessing all perfections, which includes existence and thus God has to exist. Descartes argue that an object had to posses certain qualities or else it could not be considered to be an object, for example, triangles angles must add up to 180 degrees. In the same way thus existence cannot be separated from the idea of God.

In the 20th Century there have been two main philosophers who have worked noteably on the Ontological Argument, Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga. Malcolm’s theory is based on the premise that the classical Christian theist view of God is right. His work focuses on the idea of God having necessary existence. His theory was if God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. He cannot be brought into existence or happen to come into existence, because this would lead to a greater being than God, but this being would then be God as it can be conceived of as the greatest being. Therefore God is either necessary or impossible but along with Anselm’s ideas this means God has to exists, with belief or not. Malcolm believes that unless God’s necessary existence presents us with a logical contradiction, we have to accept it.

Alvin Plantinga’s notion of God’s existence is through his form of the argument through the idea of possible worlds. This is the notion of the world as it is today is just a chance event and that our presence here is not necessary but was possible, if it were impossible we would not be here. A possible world is the complete way something can be. It is how these certain conditions have lead to the world around us to be here today but also allows that if the conditions were even slightly different a completely different world would be here. He then argues that God also has maximal greatness, which can only happen if He has necessary existence. Maximal greatness is the possession of the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence.

And for God to achieve this existence in all possible worlds with maximal greatness it cannot depend on anything else, omnipotence. It can appear in any possible world, omniscience, and the sense of order and goodness leads to the idea of benevolence. This is referred to by Plantinga as maximal excellence. However this all relies on the premise of the classical theistic God.

If this is applied to our world it leads to the one conclusion that God exists because this is a possible world and God is said to have maximal greatness and thus maximal excellence. The argument logically works as long as we accept the statement that ‘God exists’ is an a priori statement.

(b) To what extent do the strengths of this argument overcome its weaknesses?

There are many of critiques of the Ontological Argument in its various forms, the main objection to the argument is that just because existence can be suggested does not mean it exists. Gaunilio was Anslem’s first critic, he was a Catholic Monk, he was concerned with the assumption the God exists, for this means that there is no point of making an argument to convince someone who denies God’s existence if he exists. Gaunilio came up with the analogy of the ‘most perfect island’, if a perfect island, lost and untouched, and then state it must exists because of its perfection, you would be foolish to believe him. It is a criticism of how Anselm seems to jump straight to God having to exist because we can conceive of him. However Anselm never compares things like Gaunilo, because he sees God as ‘the greatest conceivable being’, and Gaunilio uses islands of which you conceive better. Plantinga also defeats this critique, he points out those islands have no intrinsic maximum, and you can always improve an island but God cannot because He is the ‘greatest’ he can possibly be conceived of being.

Immanuel Kant opposed the version of the argument put forward by Rene Descartes. He objected to the claim the denying God’s existence was the same as deny triangles angles add up to 180 degrees, which is a contradiction. He states that if one dismisses the idea of the angles adding up and that of triangle its self, there is no contradiction left. This appears to deal with Descartes but Kant has a second point to defeat Anselm, ‘existence is not a predicate’, he says that just because someone says X exists it does not tell you anything about X. Thus the statement ‘X exists’ is telling us a property about X, then ‘X does not exist’ denies that it has this property, but how can God lack this if it does not lack anything?

Thomas Aquians’ compliant about the Ontological argument is it does not base the statement ‘God exists’ on a secure basis. It does not refer to any a posteriori criteria because it is based entirely on a logical argument. This is not going to convince an atheist because they have to start with the assumption the God does exist.