Outline the ontological arguments and consider how successful they are, as proofs of God's existence'
A.S Philosophy Luke Hyde
Q. 'Outline the ontological arguments and consider how successful they are, as proofs of God's existence'.
The ontological argument is a perfect example of a priori argument. For example, it uses logic to prove an initial definition to be correct. The term refers to a whole series of arguments within a thought. The arguments aim is to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God. St Anselm was the man who suggested that deductive reasoning could be used to prove God's existence - a priory argument. The ontological argument is a rationalist argument. A rationalist argument is a view that true knowledge of the external world does not come through experience. It is through reason alone, without reference to the external world, that the truth is known. The argument is also deductive. It uses a method of reasoning by logical stages to reach a conclusion. Each philosopher who contributed to the argument though up 'logical stages', which lead to a final conclusion.
The Ontological argument can be separated down to three stages. The first being about the definition of God as that than which no greater can be conceived, and its suggestions. The second being the logicality of God not existing at all, and finally why 'the fool' believes that which is impossible, to be true. The four philosophers who gave their views about the existence of God took these three parts into great consideration, and from them they constructed what they believed to be a suitable conclusion.
There are four main contributors of the argument arranged into two groups, the 'Classical' Ontological arguments and the 'Modern' ones. Both try to challenge peoples views and try to find an answer to the all important question, 'What is the concept of God?'. The man who originally brought up this question was St Anselm of Canterbury, and since then, there have been various views brought forward by various philosophers, each claiming that they have the correct answer to the complex and very challenging question.
St Anselm, defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. He expressed the point that even an atheist (non religious person) has a view of God, even if it is dismissing his existence. Therefore, for everyone, of all faiths, God must be present in the mind and reality because he is 'that in which no greater can be conceived'. Anselm stated that God was necessary. But that he meant that God exists outside our space and time, but is able to create and act within it, meaning that there is no possibility of God not ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
St Anselm, defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. He expressed the point that even an atheist (non religious person) has a view of God, even if it is dismissing his existence. Therefore, for everyone, of all faiths, God must be present in the mind and reality because he is 'that in which no greater can be conceived'. Anselm stated that God was necessary. But that he meant that God exists outside our space and time, but is able to create and act within it, meaning that there is no possibility of God not existing. Anselm suggested that we already have some knowledge about God's existence. We know that something can exist that cannot thought to not to exist, and that God must be something, if he is 'than which no greater can be conceived'. In conclusion, Anselm claimed to know that he has accomplished to goals. Both proving God's existence, and proving God's existence was necessary.
Since Anselm's argument coming to people attention, over the years there have been philosophical commentators damning the argument and being deeply opposed to it for various reasons.
An example is a man called Gaunilo of Marmoutier. He accused Anselm of confusing 'imaginary existence' with 'real and unquestionable fact'. His main point was that there is a great distinction between concepts and objects, words and things. He also questioned what the word 'God' actually meant, and as a result of that, if the word had any application.
However despite the criticism, some thought differently and agreed with Anselm's arguments. One was a man called Liebniz, who said that God must exist, due to the fact that some one who possesses all perfection not to exist, would be meaningless and worthless.
Rene Descartes was the second contributor to the 'Classical Ontological argument'. After reading Anselm's views and beliefs, he developed them to stating that God was a 'supremely perfect being' , as the main indicate for his argument.
Descartes concluding by declaring that God must exist, because existence is a predicate of a perfect being. He went on to say that it is utterly illogical to try to think of an non-existing God.
Just like Anselm, Descartes received harsh criticism relating to his views. One man who in particular opposed his beliefs was a man called Immanuel Kant. This was because he believed 'existence is not a predicament'. For example saying someone exists doesn't tell anyone anything about the subject. Kant concluded that for a predicament to be true, it must give information about the subject, in this context, God.
Bertrand Russell, a famous twentieth century philosopher, agreed with Kant by claiming the term 'existence' cannot be a predicate. He used the following example to demonstrate this: 'Man exist, Santa Claus is a man, Therefore Santa Clause exists'. This is a syllogism ( two premises or more which lead to a conclusion). Knowing that this cannot be possibly be true, then it cannot be true for the proof of God's existence either.
There are two main contributors of the modern versions of the Ontological argument, being Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga.
Norman Malcolm considers Anselm's arguments and concluded that the second section is far more reliable and accurate than the first. This is because the first section is far to criticising and he also believes that the second section of the argument doesn't treat existence as a predicate.
Malcolm proposed a form of the argument supporting necessary existence, explaining that is God could exist, he does exist, since he does exist. In conclusion to Malcolm's comments, he strongly believed that God has necessary existence.
Brian Davies, a current philosopher, recognises the attempt made by Malcolm to distinguish the difference between existence and necessity. He states that the word 'it' has two separate meanings. To define something, and more importantly, to explain that there actually is something, e.g. there is such a thing as a unicorn. Davies commented on the fact that the second meaning doesn't define anything, but says there is a unicorn - completely supposing its existence. We can therefore conclude that Malcolm's arguments move from the definition of God, to the conclusion that God actually exists.
Alvin Plantinga developed the philosophical concept of 'possible worlds'. A possible world is a complete way that things could be. He describes a possible world as having a being in it with maximal greatness only if it exists in every possible world. This relates to God because there is a being of maximal greatness in every possible world one imagines, however this isn't necessarily God. In conclusion, Plantinga states that for someone to be maximally great a being only has to be present in every possible world, and that maximal greatness entails maximal excellence. Therefore, there is a possible world in which there is a being that is maximally great, and that it has maximal excellence, equalling that there is in fact a God.
Brian Davies, claimed that a being with maximal excellence is possible, and therefore it is possible that such a being exists in our world, but this being doesn't necessarily have to exist. In conclusion, from Plantinga's evidence, the conclusion is that maximal existence is possible, and therefore God's existence is possible, and not actual.
After reviewing the comments of the four philosophers about there views of the Ontological argument and the existence of God, it seems that that the argument is generally unsuccessful. One reason why this could be is because the definitions are extremely limited and restricted. They don't look into the situation into enough detail to make the comments seem extremely believable.
Also, the task of actually defining God is especially difficult, due to the fact that we are only limited to human terms to describe God, which proves to be inadequate. Due to the absolute colossal size and magnificence of God, it is a truly impossible task to describe the details of him, due to the lack of details we currently have.
