The Ontological Argument.

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

The Ontological Argument

'Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe, but rather I believe so that I can understand.’ (Anselm, Proslogion Chapter 1)

The ontological argument for the existence of God was famously set out by Bishop Anselm in his Proslogion (Chapters 2-4). This argument is a pure-thought argument and does not require the thinker to venture into the realm of sensory experience. It is also an argument that seems to presuppose a faith-stance (this also being interpretation of it and a view which is accepted by the author of this article). In other word's, Bishop Anselm was a Christian and his ontological argument for the existence of God seems to be a way for him to dwell on the greatness of God and not necessarily intended to convince any unbeliever that God exists.

Ontology is to do with 'being' (or what something is). Anselm's ontological argument concerns existence and whether it is an attribute (characteristic/quality) of God in the same way omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are believed to be. As such the argument is an a priori argument. It does not rest on proving God's existence from the empirical realm (as arguments such as and do), but on showing that God must exist logically (or that God's non-existence is illogical).

The main idea behind Anselm's argument is that epistemology (what we know) IS ontology (what there is); or, that if it is possible to conceive of X, then X must surely exist. As such the central premise of the ontological argument is:

'God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived'

In other words, something that exists in reality is better than something which only exists in the mind (or existence is the best possible quality something can have).

To illustrate this it is obvious that one can imagine all kinds of fantastic creatures and beings but if they do not exist then they cannot be the greatest of all conceivable beings. For Anselm any being that has the attribute of existence is greater than a being that did not have the attribute of existence. Therefore, that for Anselm, 'God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived' means God must exist. It is not saying that God's attributes must be greater than anything we can imagine of God. This would ultimately lead nowhere as you could conceive of a God greater than mine (i.e. more powerful), and others to postulate greater things than others ad infinitum.

Anslem presented his argument in two stages:

The first statement of the argument is that existence is the greatest possible attribute God can have:

For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thoughts and thinks that it exists because he has done it… And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of existing in reality as well, which is greater. (Proslogion, Chapter 2)

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

The second stage of Anselm’s argument is that it is illogical to consider that God might not exist:

For one can think there exists something that cannot be thought of as not existing [or it is inconceivable for it not to exist], and that would be greater than something which cannot be thought of as not existing [i.e. It does not exist!]…For if that greater than which cannot be thought can be thought of as not existing, then that greater than which cannot be thought is not that greater than which cannot be thought… (Proslogion, Chapter 3 [my brackets and emphasis])

...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The second stage of Anselm’s argument is that it is illogical to consider that God might not exist:

In other words, the greatest possible thought one can have about God is not only that God exists, but that God’s non-existence is impossible (or one cannot conceive of any realm of existence (or possible world) where God does not exist). In fact, Anselm is arguing that God has necessary existence. Something which has necessary existence is something that exists in all possible worlds (i.e. It is not contingent). In classical theism [] God is believed to have necessary existence because God created the world, is eternal and is outside time.

The ontological argument was reformulated by in the seventeenth century. It also has a contemporary expression in the work of and Norman Malcolm who both concentrated on the issue of God's necessary existence.

Anselm clearly believes that by meditating on the being of God one can be assured of God's existence. Thus he concludes by saying that, ‘For no-one who understands what God is can think that he does not exist.’. In fact, those who attempt to speak of God, yet deny God's existence, are the fool spoken of in the Bible in Psalm 14:1 [].

Further Reading

________________________________________________________

Footnotes

[1] The basic tenets of classical theism in Christianity are that God has the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and benevolence. God is also believed to be outside time (eternal), knows the future (predestination), and can act in the world (miracles).

[2] 'The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' (Psalm 14:1)

Objections to the Ontological Argument

‘Even though [The Fool] may say those words in his heart he will give them some other meaning or no meaning at all.’ (Anselm, Proslogion Chapter 4)

Objectors to the ontological argument have been quick to point out that merely postulating the existence of something does not necessarily mean that that something exists.

Gaunilio

Anselm's first critic was the Catholic Monk Gaunilio and his concerns can be set out in the following way:

The assumption that God exists

For if God cannot be thought not to exist, then what is the point of launching this whole argument against someone who might deny that something of such a nature actually exists?

This seems to imply that Anselm was providing a Christian ‘meditation’ on the person of God and therefore begins by assuming God's existence. However, as Gaunilio points out, if one is dealing with an atheist then one cannot argue with them on the a priori assumption that God exists. Thus the ontological fails with atheists before it has even begun.

The problem of knowing God (or even speaking about God)

For if I hear about some man completely unknown to me, whom I do not even know exists, I could at least think about him through that specific and generic knowledge by which I know what a man is or what men are like ... But when I hear someone say "God" or "something greater than everything else" I cannot think of it as I thought of that nonexistent man, for I was able to think of the latter in terms of some truly existing thing known to me, while in the former case I can think only of the bare words, and on this basis alone one can seldom or never gain any true knowledge.

also discusses this issue (see below). If God is so beyond us (transcendent), how can we ever know God? How can we even speak of God? Unless one begins with experience one cannot test the reliability of one's thoughts about that which one has experienced. Yet, if we had such knowledge of God there would be no need for any proof that God exists. The fact that we do not have such knowledge means we are often left in a realm of speculation and thus open to the charge, 'Why privilege YOUR understanding of God over MINE?'.

Conception does not imply reality (epistemology IS NOT ontology)

If it is said that this being, which cannot be conceived of in terms of any existing thing, exists in the mind, I do not deny that it exists in mine. But through this alone it can hardly be said to attain existence in reality.

To prove his point Gaunilio spoke of a perfect island which he could conceive of yet did not have to exist in reality. Modern Christian humanist thinkers (E.g. ), argue that God’s existence is limited to a concept in the mind (‘’). However, can it be said that God exists in the mind AND in reality. The problem here is not one of God’s existence but of proof of God’s existence!

The presumption of Anselm’s argument

If it is asserted in the first place that this being is so great that its non-being is logically inconceivable (this in turn being proved by nothing except that otherwise it would not be greater than all other beings), then the fool can answer, "When did I say that such a being, namely one greater than all others, actually exists, thus allowing you to proceed from there to argue that it so really exists that its very non-existence is inconceivable?"

This is a further elucidation of the points Gaunilio raised earlier.

Anselm's Response to Gaunilio

To be fair Anselm did attempt to refute his critic but his responses all seem to boil down to other versions of what he had already said rather than bringing any new points to the table. In summary, here are the main points he raised against Gaunilio:

The appeal to 'faith and conscience'

Since whoever wrote this reply to me is not the fool against whom I wrote in my treatise but instead one who, though speaking on behalf of the fool, is a catholic Christian and no fool himself, I can speak to him as a catholic Christian

Anselm begins by asking Gaunilio to look 'inside' himself to see that what he [Anselm] is saying is actually the truth. However, once again this argument only works if one begins by assuming God's existence, and that one is in a relationship with this particular God. On the other hand, one could appeal to what Christians believe is an innate sense of God's presence in the world through general revelation. However, the Bible says that unredeemed humanity is corrupted by sin and denies God (see Romans 1). This begs the question, how can people know God unless God first reveals Godself to them? And if God does reveal such knowledge what is the point of Anselm's argument?

The certainty of God's existence

On the basis of what Anselm believes Gaunilio should know about God through 'conscience', he then makes a further appeal to the notion of God's necessity. In other words, there are some things we know [innately] do not exist (E.g. Unicorns). Thus it would be foolish to argue that they did. However, our conscience tells us that God does exist and so we would be foolish to deny this. Once again, this argument works if one accepts that the mind is a picture of reality (epistemology IS ontology), and that God already exists!

That God would exist anyway

For no one who denies or doubts the existence of "a being greater than which cannot be thought of" denies or doubts that, if it did exist, it would be impossible for it not to exist either in reality or in the mind.

Of course God would exist if God existed! However, the problem, as always, is one of proof. One has to once again presume the existence of God for this 'statement' to be of any value.

The problem conceded?

It is not, it seems, so easy to prove the same thing of "that which is greater than all other things," for it is not all that obvious that something which can be thought of as not existing is not nevertheless greater than all things which actually exist.

In this final passage Anselm seems to have accepted that there is an epistemological gap between conception (what he knows) and reality (what he believes others should know). Even thought it may be obvious to him, and, according to him, should be obvious to other Christians, this does not mean it is obvious to everyone.

Thomas Aquinas

criticised the ontological argument for not having a secure basis on which to rest the proposition 'God exists'.

Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us, but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature – namely by his effects

As we know from his ‘Five Ways’ Aquinas believed arguments for the existence of God could deduce from perceived ‘effects’ around the world and the universe the existence of God. However, the ontological argument is a logical argument only. This means it does not refer to any a posteriori criteria to support it's claim that God exists. Aquinas continues, 'To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature... This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists'. This also criticises Anselm's assumption that conscience is sufficient to prove to a person that God exists.

Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this name God is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the name signifies exists actually; but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.

As far as Aquinas is concerned, if one is to accept that God exists then this must be verifiable in some way. Otherwise, one is left with the assumption that God exists which is clearly not going to satisfy the atheist ('this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist').

Immanuel Kant

And thus the real does not contain more than the possible. A hundred real dollars do not contain a penny more than a hundred possible dollars. (Kant)

critiqued version of the ontological argument. He noted that the idea of existence would be analytically connected to the idea of a supreme being but whether this then connects with a supreme being that exists outside the human mind would need to be settled on the basis of experience. Kant also pointed out that existence is not a predicate of something. It is not an attribute to be added to something (E.g. goodness or mercy).

Being is evidently not a real predicate, or a concept of something that can be added to the concept of a thing.

Existence is not a characteristic that something may have or lack (One cannot say "Put all the dogs that exist in one cage and all the dogs that do not exist in the other" but one can say "Put all the brown dogs in one cage and all the black dogs in another"!). There is a logical difference between saying "God is x" and "God is". The difference being not what God is like (E.g. omnipotent, omnipresent, all-good etc.) but whether God exists per se. Thus Descartes'/Anslem's argument simply tells tells us that if God existed, God would exist, but cannot do any more than that (i.e. show us whether God really exists (or could exist), in reality).

Kant's philosophy rested on drawing together a priori synthetic statements. This meant that things which were in the noumenal realm beyond sense experience (a priori), could be verified in the phenomenal realm (synthetic). Clearly, he is satisfied that the ontological argument fails to do this:

I try to conceive a being, as the highest reality (without any defect), the question still remains, whether it exists or not... the knowledge of that object should be possible a posteriori also... and any existence outside that field [the realm of sensory experience], though it cannot be declared to be absolutely impossible, is a presupposition that cannot be justified by anything. ([my brackets])