Ian Wong

Rev. Blackhall
16 October 2015

Ontological Argument Essay

The term ontological argument was first coined by Immanuel Kant in ‘the critique of

pure reason’ to describe a priori, deductive, analytic arguments. Another term for a priori is

propter quid. The word ontological is devised from the greek verb einai meaning ‘to be’ and

ontological arguments try to show that existence is a natural part of Gods being. Moreover

the ontological argument is the only a priori argument, it does not start from some feature of

the world but rather from a definition of God. It therefore seeks to move from a definition of

God to the reality of God. It was put forward in two forms by St. Anselm. Kant was

considered to have demolished it but the argument has recently generated new interest. It is

said that in order to understand the ontological argument, the difference between an analytic

statement and a synthetic statement must be understood. As such, and analytic statement is

one where the predicate is included within the subject. On the other hand, a synthetic

statement is one where the predicate is not included within the subject. Synthetic statements

could only be known to be true by enquiry, through experience.

St. Anselm is the name most firmly associated with the ontological argument and in the

11th century, whilst he was archbishop of Canterbury, he wrote two treaties which have

become the foundation of the argument. He wont the monologic and the proslogion. Anselm

was primarily concerned with showing that it is reasonable to believe in God. He directed the

monologic to atheists and agnostics in the hope that the rationality of his argument would

help atheists to believe and to show that atheism cannot be coherently maintained. The

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !1

things in life which they suppose to be good. Because of this, Anselm argues, all people must

have an idea of goodness and justice in their minds. Anselm further argues in the monologic

that all of the principles which help us to understand truth, beauty, goodness and justice are

to be discovered in God, a being who is ‘good through itself since every other good is good

through it’. He claims that it is God who gives us the ability to rank goods.

In the preface of the proslogion (which is an address to God) Anselm states: “I have

written the following treatise in the person of one who… seeks to understand what he

believes.”. Anselm argues that God is indeed by definition that than which nothing greater

can be conceived. This definition is understood by believers and non-believers. It is one thing

to exist in the mind alone and another to exist both in the mind and in reality. He further

states that it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than to exist in the mind alone. Thus,

God must exist both in reality as well as in the mind. If God is just an idea in the mind, then

the definition points to something greater- a God who exists both in the mind and in reality.

In Anselm’s second argument he argues that the atheist does not believe in God either

because he has not heard of God, or because he is irrationally ignorant and chooses not to

believe in God. Anyone who reflects on why there is goodness in the universe, for Anselm,

must conclude that it comes from God. Hence, the proslogion was written with the existence

of God having already been established and the definition of God having been already

decided: the definition is not an assumption, but it is arrived at through reason. Peter Vardy

points out that the proslogion is written as a prayer, it is written as a conversation with God.

This could be seen through the beginning of the writing which states: ‘come then, Lord my

God, teach my heart where and how to seek you. Where and how to find you.’ The

proslogion is not written to prove God’s existence, Anselm believes he has achieved this in the

Monologic. The proslogion is an explanation of what is believed not a proof of what is

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !2

that it is only with faith that we can hope fro a true understanding of the existence and nature

of God.

The proslogion consists of two arguments, both a priori, propter quid arguments which

start from a first principle or definition arrived at through reason. They are also both reductio

ad absurdum arguments which aim to show that disagreement with the argument is logical

absurdity. It claims that God cannot not exist. The argument in proslogion two attempts to

show that the non-existence of God contradicts our definition of God and proslogion three

attempts to demonstrate that God mist exist necessarily and the if God exists only

contingently, this contradicts our definition.

Ever since Anselm wrote the proslogion, many philosophers have been attracted to the

ontological argument, and it has hence undergone many revisions to try to make it work. The

list of philosophers who have revised the arguments is endless, however, one of who is named

Rene Descartes. He was a rationalist; this means that for him, philosophical truth was to be

found in the operations of the mind and sense data was to be considered flawed and

untrustworthy. This is very important as it highlights the distinction between inductive and

deductive proofs in philosophy. Descartes argument is deductive and follows a pattern which

states that he has an idea of a supremely perfect being; existence is a predicate or quality of a

supremely perfect being; a supremely perfect being hence exists. All in all, Descartes is stating

that he has an idea of God in his mind. This however, is not an a priori claim. He further

argues that this being exists necessarily. he then further goes on to argue that to state that God

does not exist would be self-contradictory as existence is a predicate of the supremely perfect

being: it would be like saying that a circle has four sides. Descartes argues that there is an

objective necessity that connects God to existence, just as there is an objective necessity

connecting a mountain to a valley: you simply cannot have one without the other. 


ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !3

After the proslogion was published, an attempt to refute the argument was

produced by Guanilo of Marmoutiers and it is called Pro Insipiente: ‘On behalf of

the fool’. Anselm was so impressed with this argument, that he requested that it be

published alongside future publications of the Monologic and Proslogion. Anselm in

reply to Guanilo’s Argument stated that he thanks Guanilo for his kindness both in

criticising and praising his tract. Guanilo’s argument essentially states that the logic of

inseam’s argument can be used mutatis mutandis (by substitution of terms) to prove

the existence of a perfect island. Guanilo in his critique states that if we imagine the

greatest possible island, then this island must exist. He is effectively saying that we

cannot define something into existence. Anselm’s reply is to say that his argument and

the sequence of his reasoning only applies to God- as only God has all perfections.

Guanilo is hence saying that God is merely the greatest actual being just as the island

is the greatest actual island- but this is not what Anselm is saying. Anselm is claiming

that God is the greatest possible being and his argument only applies to God. To this

argument Anselm had a response that was in two parts. He claimed that Islands are

contingent and God exists necessarily. Islands are caused to exist and may go out of

existence, God is not subject to either of those problems hence God cannot not exist.

Therefore the non existence of the island is a possibility and this counts against it

being that than which no greater can be conceived. The second part of his response

concerns objectivity and subjectivity. For Anselm,as a Platonist, his idea of God is

objective and immutable. God cannot change. Islands however, as they are contingent,

are subjective. One persons idea of the perfect island may not match up to another

persons. For Anselm, God exists objectively and his nature does not vary from person

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !4

arrive at knowledge and understanding of this objective reality.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotelian and philosopher, rejected the ontological

argument proposed by Anselm. Aquinas believed that we have to arrive at truth by

starting with an observation. He further claims that we do not have an agreed

definition of God. Many people indeed have different ideas of God- some people even

hold that God has a body in which Aquinas considers to be absurd. Aquinas also

states that we can reason to God from the effects of God’s action in the world.

Aquinas himself does not consider that we know God’s nature, so a real

understanding of God’s nature is impossible to us. However, Aquinas holds that if we

understand God’s nature, then we would know that God’s nature does have to include

existence but as we do not know God’s nature, we have to treat it as synthetic. Hence,

all in all, Aquinas is stating that the claim that God exists is analytically true, however

it cannot be confirmed that this is to be the case and hence we can only treat it as

synthetically true. We can, therefore only argue to God using experience as as starting

point. Each of Aquinas’ five ways is an a posteriori argument based upon an initial

sense experience, such as the teleological and cosmological arguments.

Immanuel Kant first called this the ontological argument due to the fact that he

thought that the argument made an illegitimate jump from ideas to reality. He realised

that he had certain objections to his argument including which he states that we have

no clear idea of a necessary being, God is defined largely in negative rather than in

positive terms. He also states that the only sort of necessity is where statements are

necessary because of the way words and language are used. It applies to propositions

not to reality. There are no necessary propositions about existence. He further claims

that what is logically possible may not be ontologically possible. it is try that a triangle

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !5

are any triangles or unicorns. The last point he makes as an objection to the argument

is that existence to him is not a predicate or a perfection. This is the one major point

he makes and further elaborates by saying that whatever adds nothing to the concept

of an essence is not part of that essence. Existence in itself adds nothing to the

concept of an essence- to say that a hundred dollars is real rather team imaginary

does not ass any characteristics to a dollar, Existence is not part of the essence of a

thing, it is neither a perfection. In summary, Kant claimed that Anselm’s argument

could be summed up by saying that to Anselm, an absolutely perfect being must have

all possible perfections, existence in itself is a possible perfection, therefore an

absolutely perfect being must have an existence as one of its perfections. Kant rejects

the point which states existence is a possible perfection. He states that one can have an

idea of something, yet however much you develop the idea, you have to go outside it

by getting evidence from experience as to whether or not it exists. Hume stated that

necessary existence is not a coherent concept because it makes a false assumption

about existence. However, we must go out of the object to determine whether o r not

it exists, we cannot therefore determine something into its existence.

Another philosopher, Bertrand Russell, argues that when we say ‘cows exist’

what we are really saying is that the concept of cow is initiated whereas the concept of

unicorn is not. In this, Russell follows Frege who argues that ‘exists’ tells us that a

particular thing is instantiated or exists rather than being a predicate. In his famous

example, tame tigers exist, exists here is not a predicate, it adds nothing to our

knowledge of tigers. All it is saying is that the concept of tame tigers is instantiated.

While by contrast, tame tigers eat a lot, does tell us something about tame tigers,

therefore functions as a predicate.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !6

philosophy called modal logic. Modal logic makes use of possible worlds to explore

ideas of existence, necessity and possibility. Plating spent many years rejecting the

ontological argument, but believed that modal logic could be employed to make it

work. Platinga’s version of the argument relies upon two concepts that help us to

define who God is. Maximal excellence which is having omnipotence, omniscience,

moral perfection. This is the God of classical theism. Maximal greatness is when one

has maximal excellence in every possible world. If a being exhibits maximal greatness,

it exhibits maximal excellence in every possible world. Platinga further agues that

maximal greatness is possibly exemplified, in other words, it is not a logical

contradiction to state that it would be possible for a being of maximal greatness to

exist in a world somewhere. Platinga uses this as a starting point for his argument and

then using subtle logic, tries to argue that if it is possible for this being to exist in a

possible world, a being of maximal excellence must exist in every world. He claims

that what is necessarily true does not vary from world to world.

After discussing the two arguments presented by Anselm, another philosopher

by the name of Normal Malcolm comments on them. Malcolm accepts that the first

fails. He states that if God does not exist, God cannot come into existence now,

because God would be contingent on some way and would therefore not be God. He

also argues that if God does exist now, he cannot go out of existence. This means that

God’s existence is either impossible or necessary. Malcolm then argues that God’s

existence can only be impossible if it is logically absurd or contradictory. Because it is

neither of these things, God’s existence must be necessary.

All in all, after the in depth analysation of the arguments presented by the

various philosophers, it could be concluded that the argument does not prove God

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !7

existence of God for those who believe in God. The premises that state the definition

of God, and the claim that existence is both a property and a perfection must be

accepted. There tends to be three groups in the current society, tho that think the

argument works, those that think the argument fails for theological reasons, such as

Aquinas, who believed that we can never presume to know what God’s nature is like,

and those that think the argument is doomed to failure because of the very nature of

the argument itself, we cannot use an a priori reasoning to prove something exists.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ESSAY !8