1. Norman Malcolm on the Ontological Argument
A Reply to Immanuel Kant around CONTINGENCY and NECESSITY
Necessary Being 2

2. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
Influenced by Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein challenged view that all meaningful statements are either analytic or synthetic
LANGUAGE GAMES

3. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
This shifts burden of proof
Cannot divorce argument from religious context
Malcolm rejects first form of ontological argument: says with Kant existence is not a predicate of contingent things

4. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
Challenges second of Kant’s criticisms (necessary existence is self contradictory)
INSTEAD – necessary existence is designed to show “God exists in the greatest conceivable manner, the ordinary and contingent way of existing being defective”
Necessary being is designed to exclude the possibility of non- existence

5. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
A Necessary Being is not nonsensical: it separates God from being confused with a limited being
Explains difference between contingent and necessary by looking at
Dependence
Independence

6. TWO TYPES OF DRINKING IMPLEMENT:
FRAGILE (dependent)
ISN’T (independent)
The fragile is inferior since it depends on gentle handling for its existence.

7. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
Similarly: distinction between limited and unlimited
Necessity part of the logic of God’s innate superiority
E.G.: existence that requires fuel is limited because it is dependent on the fuel supply; and is therefore inferior to one which requires no fuel

8. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
First form of Kant’s argument = Kant involved in blatant contradiction: at one moment can and then at another moment cannot conceive of the necessary existence of God
 two incompatible propositions: “God (who must exist) might not exist”

9. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
Kant is wrong to consider the description of a triangle and speaking of God’s necessity are the same kind of proposition
“If a triangle exists (and it is possible none does), it has three sides”
“If God exists (by which I mean he might not exist), then he necessarily exists (by which I mean that he cannot not exist)”
This reverses Findlay’s Paradox
A) A contingent being would not deserve worship
B) A necessary being is a logical absurdity
What religion requires is denied by logic

10. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
1. God, as is the greatest conceivable being, cannot be a limited being
2. Therefore, if God doesn’t exist, he can neither be caused to come into existence nor merely happen to come into existence, as this would place a limitation on God and contradict (1.)
3. Similarly, if God does not exist, he cannot merely come into existence or cease to exist. These cases would impose a limitation on God and so contradict (1.)

11. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
4. The implication of (2.) is that, if God does not exist, his existence is impossible; the implication of (3.) is that, if he does exist, his existence is necessary
5. Either God does exist or he does not exist
6. Therefore, either God’s existence is impossible or necessary

12. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
7. God’s existence is not impossible (i.e.: the notion of his existence is not self-contradictory)
8. Therefore, God necessarily exists

13. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
Potential Critique of Malcolm
Confuses FACTUALLY necessary being (propositions 1-4) with LOGICALLY necessary being (propositions 6-8)
 should we contrast impossible existence with eternal existence instead? This would mean there is a possibility of denying God’s existence without self-contradiction

14. MALCOLM: A reply to Kant
Aseity (un-derived [from Latin a "from" and se "self"] in contrast to being derived from or dependent on another ) = causal
Denial that a being exists a se
 Malcolm cannot infer proposition 8