AO1 Ontological Argument

AO1: The Ontological argument’s status as an (a priori deductive) proof

Ontological arguments are a priori, meaning they are based on reason alone, not experience.
They begin with a definition of God, such as the greatest conceivable being, a supremely perfect being, or an unlimited being.
The argument then examines what follows from this definition.
They are deductive, so if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The conclusion is logically entailed, not just supported.
They are often linked to rationalism, though some empiricists accept them as a special case.
Deductive arguments aim at certainty.
If successful, they show what must be true.
They cannot be overturned by new evidence.
So, they can only be challenged by rejecting the premises or the logic.
They rely on analytic entailment, where truths follow from the meaning of a concept.
The ontological argument claims that existence is contained within the concept of God.
So, denying God’s existence would be a contradiction.
Unlike standard deductions, this argument uses modal ideas like necessity and possibility.
A necessary being cannot fail to exist.
If such a being is possible, then it must exist in reality.
So, reason alone is claimed to establish God’s existence.

AO1: Anselm’s ontological argument

Anselm’s ontological argument is a purely a priori argument based on the concept of God.
It is deductive, aiming to prove God exists with necessity.
Anselm uses the example of a painter who first has an idea in their mind before creating it in reality.
This shows the difference between existing in the mind and existing in reality.
He refers to Psalm 14:1, where the atheist denies God.
Even the atheist has an idea of God in their mind.
In Proslogion 2, Anselm argues:
P1. God is the greatest conceivable being.
P2. It is greater to exist in reality than only in the mind.
P3. God exists in the mind.
C1. Therefore, God exists in reality.
If God existed only in the mind, we could imagine something greater: God existing in reality.
So, God must exist in reality.
In Proslogion 3, Anselm argues that a necessary being is greater than a contingent being.
A necessary being cannot fail to exist.
So, God, as the greatest being, must exist necessarily.

AO1: Descartes’ Ontological argument

Descartes strengthens the ontological argument by basing it on rationalism.
Rationalism claims we can have certain knowledge a priori.
He rejects the scholastic method of analysing propositions step-by-step.
Instead, he argues that knowledge comes from intuition.
Intuition is a direct awareness through clear and distinct ideas.
This gives certainty.
We can bring ideas to mind and immediately see truths about them.
Descartes uses the example of a triangle.
We cannot think of a triangle without three sides.
Likewise, we cannot think of a supremely perfect being without existence.
So, existence must be part of God’s nature.
He claims this knowledge is as certain as mathematics.
The idea of God is as clear as the idea of a shape.
And seeing that God must exist is as clear as seeing that a triangle has three sides.
He also presents the deductively:
P1. God is a supremely perfect being with all perfections.
P2. Existence is a perfection.
C3. Therefore, God exists.
But the key point is not the argument itself.
Descartes thinks we directly see that God exists through intuition, not just by reasoning.

AO1: Malcolm’s ontological argument

Norman Malcolm’s ontological argument is a priori and deductive.
It analyses the concept of God rather than appealing to experience.
It uses modal logic, focusing on necessity and possibility.
The aim is to show that if God is possible, then God must exist necessarily.
Malcolm defines God as an unlimited being.
He prefers ‘unlimited’ to ‘greatest’ because it avoids subjectivity and captures Anselm’s meaning.
A limited being depends on something else and so can fail to exist.
An unlimited being has no dependencies and cannot fail to exist.
So, being unlimited implies necessary existence.
This definition is crucial.
God cannot have contingent existence, since that would involve dependence.
God also cannot have contingent non-existence, since contingency itself involves dependence.
So, only two options remain: God either exists necessarily or is impossible.
Malcolm formulates this as a modal argument:
P1. God’s existence is either necessary or impossible.
P2. If God exists, then God exists necessarily.
P3. If God does not exist, then God’s existence is impossible.
P4. God is not impossible (the concept is not self-contradictory).
C1. Therefore, God exists necessarily.
The argument depends on God being a coherent concept.
Malcolm claims there is no clear proof that God is incoherent.
So, the only way to deny God’s existence is to say the concept is impossible.
This supports Anselm’s idea that if God is possible at all, then God must exist.

AO2 ontological content

AO2: Gaunilo’s ‘lost island’ objection

Gaunilo argues that Anselm’s logic leads to absurd results.
If we apply it to the greatest possible island, then it must exist.
This would apply to anything, meaning reality would be ‘overloaded’ with perfect versions of everything.
So, Gaunilo claims the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
He is rejecting the argument’s deductive validity.

Counter

However, Anselm replies that the argument only works for God.
Descartes supports this by saying God’s essence includes necessary existence.
An island is contingent, as it depends on water to exist.
So, it can fail to exist.
No matter how perfect an island is, it is still contingent.
The argument therefore does not apply to it.

Evaluation

This reply succeeds because a priori reasoning only works for necessary beings.
It analyses definitions rather than checking reality.
Contingent things depend on external conditions, so their existence cannot be known a priori.
For example, I can know a perfect island needs water, but not whether that water exists.
So I cannot prove a contingent thing exists through reason alone.
But a necessary being has no external conditions.
So, if its concept is coherent, it must exist.
There is a clear difference between God and islands.
Gaunilo’s objection fails because it applies the argument where it does not belong.

AO2: Kant’s 2nd critique: existence is not a predicate

The ontological argument claims that denying God’s existence is incoherent, since God is defined as a maximally great being.
Kant argues this misunderstands existence by treating it as a predicate, a property of a thing.
He uses the example of 100 coins: there is no conceptual difference between 100 coins in reality and 100 coins in the mind.
If existence were a predicate, real coins would have an extra quality and be conceptually different.
But they are not.
So, existence is not a predicate.
This challenges the idea that existence makes something greater.

Counter:

However, Descartes does not rely on treating existence as a predicate, but on intuition.
We grasp that God is inseparable from existence, like a triangle is inseparable from three sides.
So Kant’s criticism misses Descartes’ argument.
Malcolm also defends Anselm.
Kant is right about contingent existence, since contingent things depend on something else.
But a necessary being contains the reason for its existence within itself.
So, necessary existence can be a defining quality in a way contingent existence is not.

Evaluation:

So, both Anselm and Descartes’ approaches succeed against Kant’s criticism.
Kant makes the same mistake as Gaunilo, thinking an argument for a necessary being could be undermined by showing it fails when applied to contingent things like coins.

AO2: Kant’s 1st critique: necessity doesn’t imply existence

Gaunilo argued that necessity in thought does not give necessity in reality.
Kant develops this by focusing on necessity itself.
A triangle must have three sides, but only if it exists.
In the same way, saying God necessarily exists only shows that if God exists, then God exists necessarily.
So, necessity can be part of the concept without proving real existence.
If God exists, denying necessity is contradictory.
But if God does not exist, then necessity does not apply.

Counter:

Malcolm responds that Kant’s criticism is incoherent because a necessary being must exist.
If God is a necessary being, then God must exist.

Evaluation

Hick argues that Malcolm confuses different types of necessity.
Calling God non-contingent only means God would be self-explaining and non-dependent (aseity).
This is not logical necessity.
It does not mean God must exist, only how God would exist if real.
The argument fails to show that God’s non-existence is contradictory.
It only shows that if God exists, God exists in a special way.
So, Kant’s development of Gaunilo’s point is correct: necessity in a concept does not prove actual existence.