things that do not. It could be argued that Spiderman exists; if not exactly how we concieve him, it is
logically possible that he could exist. The fact that we are able to concieve such a being who is capable
of performing acts that morals are not, at least points out that there is a possibility that he exisits.
This same argument can also be applied to God, he exists in the mind, as we all have a definition of Him
and it is not logically impossible that He exists in reality. However things that exist in reality are
greater than those that exist in the mind, 'Greater than which nothing can be concieved', Anslem is
suggested that if you concieve something greater in the mind there is a possibility that it exists in
reality, would make it's existence greater for example in terms of being more powerful and freer etc in
comparison to just being a figment of someones imagination. Therefore God must exist in reality as well
as in the imagination, because if he just existed in the imagination then there could logically be 'a being
greater than can be concieved' in reality. There is no chance of God not existing because he exists in
our minds, and Anslem states that we are as human beings aware of this factors. (because one must
actually be in order for another to actualise something else). This would mean that there would be no
actualisation of beings and objects would cease to exist. Due to the fact that objects and beings do
exist, there must be a necessary being whom is immutable, timeless, infinite, one and actual.
Anslem state that God was "that than which can be thought not to exist is not as great as that which
cannot be thought not to exist." Therefore, to say that God can be thought not to exist if the
definition of God is "that than which none greater can be conceived" contradicts the previous statement
and this indicates that God necessarily exists. Anslem suggested that God must be a necessary being
(He must exist). This is because God is omnipotent and his existence doesn't rely upon anything else, he
is unque unlike anty contingenmt items eg a perfect island. With everything else in the world-apart
from God-their existence is reliant upon something else. However, God's existence is part of his
essence. As Gottfried Leibniz said: "There must exist some one Being of metaphysical necessity, that
is, to whose essence existence belongs.' Consequently, according to Anselm, He must be necessary.If
something than which nothing greater can be thought of could be thought of as not existing, then
something than which nothing greater can be thought of would not be something than which nothing
greater can be thought of, which is an outright contradiction and thus absurd. Something than which
nothing greater can be thought of has such a high degree of existence, that is, necessary existence,
that it cannot be thought of as not existing, that is, its nonexistence is impossible.
Descartes moderated the ontological argument and said that "a supremely perfect being" must exist as
existence is a defining predicate. He attempts to prove this concept by trying to portray it by using an
example of a triangle. He says that "existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than
the fact that its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of the
triangle". Descartes is basically saying that by definition, a triangle must have three angles and in the
same way, he is saying that that ‘existence’ must be a predicate that is included in the defining
qualities that God holds. Descartes tried to prove the necessary existence of God through this
argument:
1.If there is a God it is a perfect being;
2. A perfect being possesses all possible perfections;
3. Existence is a perfection;
4. Therefore, God necessarily possesses the quality of existence. Simply, God exists.
Norman Malcolm, a twentieth century philosopher also attempted to strengthen the Ontological
argument. Malcolm was very careful in his attempt to prove that God existed. His argument was based
on two statements. The first was what if God exists, then his existence is necessary. The second
statement argues that if God does not exist, his existence is impossible. However, since we cannot say
that God’s existence is impossible, his existence is therefore necessary.
Another argument which sets about trying to prove the 'necessary' existence of God is the
cosmological argument. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, as propounded by Thomas
Aquinas, is also known as the Third Way. It is the Third of Five ways in Aquinas's masterpiece, "The
Summa" (The Five Ways). The cosmological argument is based ultimately on the existence of the cosmos
(hence the name) and its main gist is that for something to move it must first be caused to move by
something else.
The Cosmological argument is developed around a distinction between that which has necessary
existence and that which is contingent. A thing that has necessary existence must exist in all possible
worlds, whereas a thing that is contingent may go out of existence. It is an undisbutable fact that
everything contingent exists. Something cannot just bring itself into existence, since it must exist to
bring itself into existence which is illogical . Therefore there mist have been something before time
which caused the existence. Scientist think that the world began with the Big Bang, and that over the
course of the universe we have undergone a process of evolution. Whether or not this theory is correct,
the cosmological argument states that there cannot be infinite regress: a chain of events cannot go
back to the beginning of time, because then 'What caused the Big Bang?'.. Science seeks to know how
the universe works. But it cannot answer the question, "Why the universe?" On a smaller scale, there is
no obvious reason why our world and the life in it should exist. Unless the world is contingent on
something or someone it might just as well not exist. So there must have been a higher being which
brought the world into existence, he must be a first or prime mover which caused this, owing nothing
outside hiself. This higher being is necessary because without him there would not be a contingent
universe.
Thomas Aquinas also used the concept of motion to initiate his cosmological argument. His approach
varied somewhat from those which had gone before. If there isn't a first movement, nothing else can
move. At the same time, an infinite regress of movement isn't possible. This implies that there must be
a first cause (an "efficient" cause) because without that there could be no other causes. He added that
this cause must be a "being". Beings either exist or they don't. There is no reason to suppose that the world has
to exist. But it does exist. Therefore something which causes the world must necessarily exist. As he put it,
"Necessary reality is always actual. It is never balanced between existing and not existing." A necessary being
can't logically be caused by any other being. If it were, then the other being would be the necessary one. This
being is one which has "of itself its own necessity" owing nothing outside itself existing before anything else
did. An essential property of a necessary being is eternality. If then it could be made plausible that the universe
began to exist and is not therefore eternal, one would to that extent at least have shown the superiority of theism
as a rational world view. This higher being is thought to be God, and therefore God is necessary in order to cause
the universe.
Rene Descartes asked what happens if everything is doubted - even one's own existence. He thought
that the "I" of which each one of us is aware when we think is the one thing of which we can be certain.
Hence his famous dictum, "I think, therefore I am." He went on to wonder "...from whom could I ...
derive my existence" if there is no God? If I exist then my existence "... requires the same power and
act that would be necessary to create it ..." Just as we think and therefore exist, so there must be an
ultimate Thinker from whom all existence derives. This "thinking being" is the ultimate cause of all
other beings and must therefore possess "the idea and all the perfections I attribute to deity."
The cosmological argument and ontological argument prove God's existence is 'necessary' through many
different methods. If a person accepts that God is the ultimate creator and that there can be no one
greater it is safe to assume that God is necessary, and the ontological and cosmological arguments set
out a logical way of achieving this!
