Outline the Ontological argument for the existence of God. Comment on the claim that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.

Further arguments for the ontological argument come from philosopher Norman Malcolm. He used the argument of statements. In this he says that every statement can be classified as either ‘Yes, No or Maybe.’  We can use this to test the statement: ‘God’s existence is necessary.’ Firstly, we question whether or not this statement could maybe be true – However, if God’s existence is necessary then how can a necessity become a possibility/maybe true? – Calling this statement as ‘maybe true’ is only illogical. We then question whether the statement can be ‘no’ but, a statement is only ever ‘no’ if it contains contradiction, for example, ‘no one in the world should lie except me.’ If no one should lie – neither should I as I am a part of the world, this thus makes the statement incorrect. However the statement: ‘God’s existence is necessary,’ contains no contradictions so ‘no’ has been ruled out. Therefore we are left with ‘yes’ and so Malcolm states that God must exist.

The final argument for the ontological argument comes from philosopher Platinga, who devised a modal form. He states that firstly, it is proposed that a being has maximal excellence in a given possible world - if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in that world. Secondly, it is proposed that a being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. Thirdly, Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. It is possible that there be a being that has maximal greatness. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

As well as strengths, the above philosophers have bought about many criticisms to the ontological argument. An example of such is by St Aquinas, who makes a reply to St Anselm’s argument of: ‘God is that of which nothing greater can be conceived.’ Aquinas says that we cannot ‘conceive’ God so how can we ‘conceive’ greater. He goes on to say that all statements about the existence of something have to be based on experience. He claims that the Ontological argument tries to make and existential proposition analytic – which cannot occur.

Kant also makes his rebuttal against St Anselm. He states that Anselm has made the fault of using the word ‘existence’ as a predicate. Kant goes on to say that existence does not tell us anything of the nature of God and that you cannot define something into existence. A predicate is similar to an adjective – it is used to describe something, however, ‘exists’ does not describe the nature of anything. Therefore Kant says that simply defining something does not make anything exist. A simple analogy to use could be: If I was to think of a crisp £50 note in my pocket and described it in depth – it would not mean that it existed – similarly with God.

St Anselm’s argument, which sees the involvement of both first and second predicates at one given point, spurs on another opposition by Frege. He states that Anselm’s use of both first and second predicates is illogical. This is because first predicates are often associated with the describing of something. For example, God is omnibenvolent, omnipotent, omniscient, merciful etc. Anselm uses the aforementioned with the addition of the word ‘exists.’ Frege states that the word ‘exists’ is not a describing word and is not a first predicate, instead – it is a second predicate. He then goes on to say that Anselm included the use of both predicates merely in aid of proving his point – despite being highly illogical.

Similarly, Betrand Russell follows this same principle in finding fault in St Anselm’s argument. He states that the word ‘exists’ is used incorrectly, as it is an extension – extensions do  not tell us of the nature of anything. However, intentions are descriptive and tell us of the nature of things – these two are not the same. Anselm has again used both intentions and extensions in order to prove his theory despite lacking logic.

Furthermore, in response to Malcolm’s argument of ‘yes, no or maybe’ statements philosopher, Davies goes on to suggest that the use of the word ‘is’ has been used innocently. This is because ‘is ‘can only be used in two ways. Firstly, to define something, for example: there IS the Queen and secondly, to explain the existence of something for example, there is a thing as a vampire. Malcolm assumes that: ‘GOD is necessary, therefore God is.' However, Davies disagrees as he believes the word ‘is’ has not been used to describe or explain anything – therefore it has been used incorrectly and therefore does not withstand logic and reason.

In conclusion, It is apparent that there are far more weaknesses than strengths. I believe that the above stated strengths are extremely weak. For example, Norman Malcolm’s argument is purely based on play on words. Therefore it is easy to conclude that the argument may strengthen the faith of a believer, however, it will fail convince an atheist. The main reason for this being that there are far more weakness to strengths – the few strengths that have been portrayed are also extremely weak.