The Ontological Argument

As well as these two forms of the ontological argument, there are also some forms of the argument put forward by modern philosophers. One such modern philosopher is Norman Malcolm. Malcolm develops Anselm's argument. Malcolm also describes God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. If God does not exist then he cannot come into existence for if he did he would be nothing more than a contingent being which would make him a limited being. Since he cannot come into exist, if he does not exist then his existence is impossible. If he does exist he cannot have come into existence nor can he cease to exist as nothing could cause him to exist nor could anything cause him to cease to exist. So, if God exists his existence is necessary. God's existence does not seem impossible, as it could only be impossible if it would be logically impossible for him to exist. Thus God must be necessary and therefore God must exist.

Another modern philosopher to put forward a form of the ontological argument is Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga uses the idea of possible worlds to prove that a being of maximal greatness (i.e. God) exists in our world. For every scenario there is a possible world. For example, there is a possible world where an A grade psychology student would drop psychology and become lazy bum and another possible world where the same student would continue with psychology and become prime minister. These are two examples of possible worlds. There are an infinite number of these possible worlds. Plantinga puts forward the idea of one possible world. In this world Plantinga imagines a world in which a being of maximal greatness exists. This being would have maximal greatness only if it existed in all possible worlds. This being of maximal greatness must also be a being of maximal excellence. A being of maximal excellence must be omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. Therefore there is a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect in our world, this is what we call God. Thus God exists.

b) Discuss whether the ontological argument proves the existence of God in reality. (8 marks)

St Thomas Aquinas rejected the Ontological argument as a proof of Gods existence. He did so because of the problem of the idea of defining God. He stated that there was not one common definition of God. For example Anselm describes God as ''that than which nothing greater can be conceived' whilst Descartes describes God as 'a supremely perfect being' whilst Plantinga describes God as 'a being of maximal greatness'. If there was a common definition of God then there would be no way of us knowing that this truly was what God was like; this definition of God may be incorrect so how can we use this definition to prove that God exists.

The next criticism of the Ontological argument comes from the idea that existence is not a predicate, which was first argued by David Hume. He stated that describing something as existing in the mind was no different from describing something as existing in reality, they "are nothing different from each other" as adding existence "makes no addition to it". Immanuel Kant added to Hume's argument. He stated that if something adds nothing to the description of a thing then it is not part of the essence of that thing. Existence adds nothing to the concept of anything. To prove this Kant used the example of imagining 100 coins, 100 coins in the mind are the same as 100 coins in reality thus existence adds nothing to the description of 100 coins. Therefore, existence is not part of the essence of a thing; existence is not a predicate of perfection or God.

Kant used Descartes' example of a triangle to help back up his own argument. Descartes' had said that it is impossible to think of a triangle not having three sides just like it is impossible to think of God as not existing. Kant said that if you have a triangle it must have three sides, however if you do not have a triangle then you do not have it's three sides either. Likewise, if you believe in God it is logical to think that it is necessary for him to exist. But you do not have to accept the existence of God in the first place. The example of a unicorn is useful here. A unicorn must have a horn. However, this does not mean that unicorns exist it just means that if a unicorn did exist it is necessary for it to have a horn; if God existed his existence is necessary but you do not have to accept that God exists in the first place. As Hicks and Hume have said, the ontological argument just makes philosophical sense of God's existence and necessity but only if you accept that God does exist.

Finally, Bertrand Russell also rejects the Ontological argument. He states that however much we define something we have to have evidence as to whether it exists. Something cannot be defined into exists; we must have some experience of it to decide that it exists. This is why Russell does not accept that an a priori argument can prove existence.

Philosophy (FM)

The Ontological Argument

3/7/07 Russell Wright 1