The Ontological Argument Quick Revision Guide

The odd one out The Ontological Argument is an A Priori argument for the existence of God. This means that it is not based on experience. Indeed it claims to prove the existence of God via logic and reason alone.

STEP ONE: Think about God Think about your idea of God. Write down some phrases that describe what God would be like if he existed. For example: All powerful. If we were to sum it up in one phrase; you could define God as a being who is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. Or if you prefer ‘the Greatest Conceivable Being’. After all can you think of anything greater than God?

Anselm’s first Ontological Argument Now that we have our definition of the word God and our intelligence, we may begin! The 11th Century Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, used the following argument in his Proslogion. He entitles the chapter ‘To the Fool’. (see Psalm 14 to find out why!)

Anselm’s first Ontological Argument (continued) Consider the idea of God. Those who understand the word know that it means the Greatest conceivable being. A being ‘than which no greater can be conceived’. The Greatest Conceivable being (GCB) could not be the GCB if he only existed in the mind, because a greater being could exist in reality. So in order to be the GCB, the Greatest Conceivable Being must exist in the mind and in reality. Therefore God must exist in reality, he exists.

Interlude: ‘Living on an island’ Another 11th Century Monk, Gaunilo, thinks he has discovered where Anselm has gone wrong... TASK: spend 5 minutes drawing your perfect island. Good News! Your island exists! (why?)

Gaunilo’s Criticism Gaunilo uses a philosophical device known as reductio ad absurdum. Look what happens to Anselm’s argument if we change the word God to a perfect island Consider the idea of a Perfect Island. Those who understand the words know that it means the best possible island. An island ‘than which no greater can be conceived’. The best possible island (BPI) could not be the BPI if it only existed in the imagination, because a better island could exist in reality. So in order to be the BPI, the best possible island must exist in mind and in reality. Therefore your island must exist in reality. So if you can prove the existence of anything with this argument there must be something wrong with it.

Anselm’s second Ontological Argument Anselm has another Ontological Argument. Some thinkers suggest that this argument avoids the difficulty of the first. To understand this, you will need to remind yourself what the words ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ mean. Consider the idea of God; this means a being that cannot be surpassed in greatness, a perfect being. This GCB cannot simply exist contingently it would be greater if he had necessary existence. In other words, it cannot be thought not to exist As God is by definition the GCB, he must have necessary existence. A logically necessary being is one whose non-existence is impossible Therefore God necessarily has to exist. Consider: is this an improvement?

Two points to note Contrary to popular opinion (and some textbooks) Anselm is not replying to Gaunilo in his second formulation of the argument. It is already written! Gaunilo is not an atheist, he believes in God. He is just not persuaded by Anselm’s argument We can now go forward 500 years and meet Descartes. A man who claims that if you understand triangles, you’ll know that God must exist!

Descartes on triangles Think about a triangle It has to have 3 sides, have internal angles of 180 degrees etc. These things are necessary to the definition of triangles Descartes goes on to apply this to God.

Descartes on God Descartes applies the things that he has learned about triangles to God God by definition is a supremely perfect being A supremely perfect being has all perfections Existence is one of these perfections Therefore God has existence, he exists. All the above things must necessarily be true provided we understand what is meant by the concept of God.

God has to exist? Surely not! What has happened? Has some sort of trick been pulled here? Even Descartes admits we might be stunned by his conclusion. He thinks this only works for God. It won’t work for a long lost island. This is because God is the only being whose essence (what he is like) entails existence.

Kant’s criticism of the argument Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) delivered what many people consider to be the knockout blow in the Ontological Argument. Kant observes that we can make two types of statement: An analytic statement is a statement where we say nothing new about the world for example: ‘A bicycle has two wheels.’ ‘The bachelor is unmarried.’ We don’t need to finish our sentences, the statement is implied in our choice of word. A Synthetic statement is one that does say something about the world. ‘The car is blue.’ has to checked using our senses.

Kant (continued) To check that you understand the difference between analytic and synthetic statements. Give an example of an analytic and a synthetic statement for each of the following: a) A bicycle b) A triangle c) A black box Kant thinks that when Philosophers say that ‘God is a Necessary Being.’ or ‘God has to exist.’ they are making an analytic statement. In other words they are talking about what words mean not whether God exists or not. Hence it is like saying, ‘If there was a God, he would have to exist’.

Kant’s killer point! Once upon a time there was a boy. The boy. . . Kicks the ball Makes a cup of tea Dances madly for 28 hours without stopping Exists. Something unusual about the last one?

Kant’s killer point (2) “The boy stood on the burning deck.” (subject) (predicate (verb+object)) Kant says that “Existence is not a predicate”. It is not a property. Existence is to do with the subject not the predicate. If you take away existence you take away everything.

Understanding Kant The Job Interview: You are interviewing for a new RS teacher. List 5 essential qualities they will need. Consider: what if I add ‘existence’ to the list and insist that all candidates should possess it or suppose we get down to a short list of two. They are identical except one has existence and one does not. Kant suggests that the Ontological Argument is a similar ‘oddity’.

Ontological Argument: summary Anselm (1): God exists because the greatest conceivable being should exist in reality as well as the mind. Gaunilo: But my perfect island would be better if it were real! Anselm (2): God has necessary existence. Kant: Existence is not a predicate, not an extra property that you can add on. Descartes: God has to exist, existence is one of his necessary perfections.

For the exam... Well done! Hopefully you now understand the ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT You will need to be able to explain each of the 4 thinkers and assess whether each of them is successful in what they try to do.