Explain Anselm and Descartes ontological argument

by amberino123 (student)

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

Explain Anselm and Descartes ontological argument (25 marks)

The ontological argument attempts to prove the existence of God, using an a priori method where no empirical evidence is required. The argument begins with an explanation of God and that is not a contingent being God is necessary and exists without a creator. The ontological argument uses logic and the concept that is absurd to say that God does not exist as its main argument; to say that god does not exist is illogical as you have already accepted the idea of God, as stated in the bible Psalm 14:1 “the fool says in his heart God does not exist.”

Anselm (1033-1109) put the ontological argument forward in his book “Proslogion.”Anselm starts the argument with a definition of God, stating God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” this is stating that if God is the greatest being that can be thought of therefore God must exist. Moreover as Anselm is a Benedictine monk he already believes in God therefore it is easier for Anselm to understand the concept of his argument. However for an atheist the argument is harder to understand.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

The second part to the argument is “that it is impossible for God not to exist” this is stating that God is a necessary existence. Similarly the argument work as if god is that nothing greater can be conceived, something that can be thought to exist is greater than anything which can be thought not to exist e.g. it is greater to have a pile of money than to think of money, therefore it is impossible to think that God does not exist. This part of Anselm’s argument is stating that God is a necessary being and that everything ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Moreover another supporter of the ontological argument is Descartes. Descartes states that God is a supremely perfect being, that God is flawless. Descartes stated that existence is perfection therefore God must have existence. Moreover this can be use in the example of a valley without a mountain both are necessary in order for a valley to exist, similarly it is existence is a necessary part of God, it is Gods predicate. To conclude Descartes is saying that imaging God without the predicate of existence is illogical such as a triangle without three sides

Emmanuel Kant criticises Descartes version of the ontological argument. Kant states that existence is not a predicate; this is stating that if X exists it does not tell us anything about X; this is explained in this quote “By whatever predicates we may conceive of a thing, we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare the thing is”.

Similarly, Gaunilo argues against the ontological argument. Gaunilo argues that if the greatest conceivable island can be conceived, does mean that is has to necessarily exist; it is absurd to state that just because something can be thought of does it have to exist. Moreover there is no end to perfection it is also a personal choice, some ones perfect island may have palm trees while someone else may hate palm trees. Gaunilo concludes that Anselm can’t prove that God exists as the greatest possible being means that God has to exist in reality.

Moreover Alvin platinga (1932) another philosopher argues against the ontological argument as he stated that the just because we have said something is real, does not mean it is actually real. He stated that there is a possible world e.g. David Cameron was prime minister however it is possible he was a street cleaner there are infinite possibilities. Platinga stated that maximal greatness is God and if God is maximally great he would exist in all of the possible worlds.

To conclude Anselms and Descartes ontological argument is based on a definition of God and enables any reader of the argument to understand the importance of the existence of God and that, it is difficult to think of a superior being to God. Some could argue that the ontological argument is unsuccessful improving Gods existence as many philosophers have critised the argument; however I believe the argument is effective in making someone think philosophically about the world and how a creator is a necessary being.