There were many philosophers that supported the ontological argument but there were three main supporters called; Anselm, Descartes and Alvin Plantinga.
Anselm centres his proofs on the existence of God on the value theory that something is too good not to be real. Anselm believed that not only is God the efficient cause of the being and well-being of everything else, but also the exemplar of all created nature. Anselm advertised his ontology by arguing that since the Supreme Good and the Supreme Being are identical in its ideas as every being is good and every good is being.
Descartes firstly wanted to prove the existence of reality. Like Plato, Descartes was ‘leading the mind away from the senses’ by observing that the senses deceived him from time to time, and it’s prudent never to trust wholly those who have deceived us even once’. Descartes introduces his ‘dreaming argument’: ‘there are no certain marks to distinguish being awake from being asleep’. He had ideas that perhaps the sky, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely ‘the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensure my judgment’. Again like Plato, he attempts to reconstruct a whole system of reliable knowledge. But first he wanted to prove the existence of a perfect God. He saw God as the source of all truth but the idea of him being the source of all truth and perfection must have been placed in his mind by an actually perfect being-God. Since God, to Descartes, is the sum of all perfections, and since existence is itself a perfection, it follows that ‘existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than the fact that it’s angles equal two right angles can be separated from it’s essence of a triangle’.
Alvin Plantinga used contemporary modal logic and metaphysics to formulate a valid ontological argument for the existence of God. Plantinga argued for the view that belief in God can, in certain circumstances be rational and warranted even if it is not based on prepositional evidence.
All these theories are very logical and explain the unexplained but Immanuel Kant has completely different ideas, which criticises all of them.
Kant disagreed thoroughly with the theories, as their ontological arguments have no contingent fact at all. Not one of the philosophers mentioned, gave a definite definition to God. Yes, they called him the ‘Supreme Good of all Supreme Being’ but it was all based upon effects, which they assumed by assuming the cause of nature and reality. Their analysis of the existence of God was cleverly explained by using their extraordinary imagination. How do we know he is the Supreme Good in the first place? They don’t explain that at all!
Kant believed that their theories of God’s existence were merely logical tricks. For example, Descartes’ theory can never be proved because it is all in the unconscious mind. If we cannot use our senses then we cannot prove anything. Kant believed in what we see is reality and situations we come across have to be solved because we have a purpose of knowing what is right and wrong and to prove what is right and wrong we have to experience it by using our senses. So basically, Kant wasn’t sure if the philosophers theories weren’t just concepts of what they imagined the existence of God to be like. Descartes said that God put all his ideas there but what if God was evil and he wants people to believe he is the greatest of all being.
The philosopher’s theories all assume God’s existence. Kant knew this as their theories fail to explain in detail what God is actually like. This is obviously because they don’t know and no one ever really will unless a miracle happens (which some claim already has!). Kant thought that they came up with their concepts of the existence of God by adding reality to make it seem more real. You cannot make a concept greater by adding reality to make people believe and understand.
In my opinion, the theories cannot be accepted as the truth because nothing more is explained than what we already know. You have to believe there is a God to believe in the theories and to understand what reality is. Descartes’ theory contradicts himself by saying you cannot use your senses to make reality real but if he’s wrote down everything God has made him believe and he’s teaching others his theory of God then they have to use their senses but he’s taught not use them. So how can they believe anything he’s saying?
