The Ontological Argument

     René Descartes is dubbed the “founder of modern philosophy” and the “farther of modern mathematics” he ranks as one of the most important and influential thinkers of modern times. René Descartes is famous for his approach to establishing the extent of his knowledge. He began by doubting that he knew anything, and then concluded that the only thing that he could know was that he was thinking. ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ – I think, therefore I am. When it comes to the ontological argument, Descartes defines God as a supremely perfect being. From this definition, Descartes tried to prove God’s existence. Because God is a supremely perfect being, he possesses all perfections. This perfect state includes existence, which is a perfection in itself. Existence is a predicate of a perfect being….Therefore God exists. There are certain things that an object has to have to be that object, these are such things as: Two wheels are essential to a bicycle, Three sides are essential for a triangle, pages are essential in a book. Descartes argued that God must exist in the same way that a triangle must have three sides and three angles that add up to 180°. Descartes argument cannot apply to objects affected by space and time (such as Gaunilo’s island); it can only apply to something that is perfect. Descartes believes that only God can have absolute perfection – there cannot be two absolutes. Descartes argued that to deny the existence of God is as absurd as saying ‘the existing such and such does not exist’. All arguments that try to establish the necessary existence of other things, including Martins or Unicorns, are trying to establish the necessary existence of contingent objects. But only an absolutely perfect being can have necessary existence. Aquinas rejects the point that Descartes wants to affirm. Descartes says we can know God’s essence and therefore we can say that God must exist. Descartes argument runs thus:

1. The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being.
2. A supremely perfect being has all perfections.
3. Existence is a perfection.
4. A supremely perfect being has the perfection of existence.
5. It is impossible to think of God as not existence.
6. God exists.

If ‘existence’ is not a predicate, then Descartes’s approach fails. Some characteristics can be possessed or lacked and are part of the description of a thing or being: green, large, round, generous. Kant argued that ‘exists’ does not work in the same way as these adjectives – it cannot be listed when saying what God is like: ‘Whatever, therefore, and however much our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside it if we are to ascribe existence to the object’. In other words, we have to establish that something exists first before we can say what it is like, not the other way round. All that Kant was prepared to say is that if there is an infinitely perfect being, then he must exist, just as if there is a triangle it must have three sides. Bertrand Russell also denied that existence could operate as a predicate, claiming only that it has a propositional function: it asserts that there are beings in the world that answer to a particular description, but it adds no further information about them. It conveys nothing of their essence or nature. To say ‘cows are brown and exist’ says nothing more than ‘cows are brown’

     Plato’s response to the ontological argument includes his allegory of the cave, which describes Plato’s idea of the form. Objects in our world are imperfect copies of the ‘Form’ of that thing. The most important ‘Form’ is the ‘Form of the Good’. All things in the material world are derivatives from the universals that they represent. Anselm regarded the ‘greatest thought’ as an Idea.

     Iris Murdoch argued that Anselm’s idea of necessary existence was a part of the Platonic view of degrees of reality. Anselm was pointing towards a spiritual reality beyond human reasoning. From this failure of reason, we are able to catch a glimpse of the nature of God as a transcendent being.

     Norman Malcolm argued that necessary existence cannot be affected about anything external to itself. It cannot be brought about, nor can it be terminated, by anything. Therefore, God’s existence is either impossible, or necessary. Because since necessary existence cannot be affected by anything beyond itself, God cannot be ‘made’ to come into existence. For God not to exist becomes logically absurd. If God does not exist, He cannot be brought into existence, therefore his existence is impossible. If God does exist, He cannot have been brought into existence, nor can he cease to exist.

     For Alvin Platinga a possible word is a complete way that things can be, not merely a different world elsewhere in the galaxy. There are an infinite number of possible worlds. In this one you chose A-Level Religious Studies – in another you could have chosen something else. There is one of these possible worlds in which there exists a being with maximal greatness. A being can only have maximal greatness if it exists in every possible world. Therefore this maximally great being must exist in every possible world. Since our world is a possible world, God must exist here. A possible world differs in some possible way from our ‘actual’ world. Philosophers use the concept to decide on the ‘modality’ of a statement. Modality refers to the statement’s necessity, possibility or impossibility.

     Garth Moore compares the existence of God with the existence of the equator – no-one claims that the equator does not exist, but there isn’t a line drawn around the planet! In the same way, God’s reality is as real for believers as is the equator for geographers. God is therefore a reality in the believer’s life.

     Gaunilo said that Anselm’s argument gave unrealistic answers when applied to different examples. He demonstrated this by applying Anselm’s theory to an island. He said he could think of an island that no greater island could be conceived, and according to Anselm’s theory this island would have to exist. Anselm’s response to this criticism is often seen as a “get out”. He said that his theories could only apply to God because things in the universe can be thought of as not existing.

     Kant said that the ontological argument made an illegitimate jump from existence in the mind and existence in reality. He said that Anselm’s idea applied more to propositions than to reality. He said that there was a clear difference from things being logically possible and being ontologically possible. A triangle may have three sides or God may have the essence to exist, but this doesn’t mean that God exists. Kant says that existence adds nothing to the concept of essence.

     Thomas Aquinas said that we have to use an experience as a starting point to understanding God. He says God’s existence isn’t in the definition of the word God but in a personal experience.

     Anselm and Descartes both believe that God’s existence is a priori; they think that part of the definition of the word ‘God’ is existence, They can believe that God is a supreme perfect being, that he posses all perfections, Existence in itself is a perfection and thus God exists to be perfect at existing.

    Personally about the statement: “The ontological argument will never be of any use in trying to prove God’s existence” Is maybe partly true, I believe that there is maybe some truth in what Anselm and Descartes say for the ontological argument, however I believe that there is a higher chance in science proving the existence of God.