Ontological – Structure A1
INTRODUCTION 1
The argument is based on being (Ontos)
It is different to most other arguments
for the existence of God as it is A Priori
and not A Posteriori.
This means it is a logical argument and
does not rely on any experiential
evidence.
It is an analytic argument – in other
words a definition. E.G. All spinsters are
unmarried women or, 2 + 2 = 4.
Ontological – Structure A2
INTRODUCTION 2
 The argument is a deductive one, as
opposed to an inductive one.
 In a deductive argument the conclusion is
guaranteed if the premises are accepted.
 To sum-up. The Ontological Argument for
the existence of God is: A Priori, Analytic
and Deductive.
Ontological – Structure A3





 SAINT ANSELM – CONTEXT
Born in Italy.11TH Century CE (1033 – 1109)
Became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093
He wrote the 24 chaptered book, Proslogion
In chapters 2 and 3 he set out his ontological
“proof” of God but it was probably written as a
prayer for believers rather than a proof to
convert unbelievers.
At this time, people didn’t query the existence
of God. It was accepted that God existed.
Ontological – Structure A4
 ANSELM’S ARGUMENT 1
 To Anselm, “God exists” is an analytic
statement like “All spinsters are unmarried
women”
 It was part of the definition of God
 “Than That which nothing greater can be
conceived” (TTWNGCBC) is the sentence
Anselm used to show that God must agree
with his definition and actually exist.
Ontological – Structure A5
 ANSELM’S ARGUMENT 2 (Proslogion 2)
 If God is greater than anyone can conceive
then God must exist in reality.
 Anselm said that something existing as an
idea (in intellectu) and having reality (in re)
was greater than something purely existing
as an idea.
 Anselm said that even the fool (taken from
Psalm 53) has a concept of God, if only to
dismiss God.
Ontological – Structure A6
 ANSELM’S ARGUMENT 3 (Proslogion 3)
 Gaunilo, a French monk who was a contemporary of
Anselm’s, criticised Anselm’s argument.
 But, in Pros 3, Anselm used the term (Reducto ad
Absurdum) to say that Gaunilo had not understood
the argument at all and reduced it to absurdity.
 Anselm then adds his second argument, saying that
God is a special case and is the only being that has
necessary existence (reminds you of part ‘A’ of the
Kalam argument) and is not contingent like
Gaunilo’s example. God can not be compared to
anything or bettered because he is TTWNGCBC.
Ontological – Structure A7






 RENÉ DESCARTES
French 16th Century CE (1596 – 1650)
He resurrected Anselm’s Argument 500 years later
and tried to simplify it.
He believed that God meant perfection.
For something to be perfect it must exist
So, God’s existence is intrinsic to the idea of God.
He drew an analogy with a triangle, saying that, as
3 sides and 180 degrees is the sum of the internal
angles is the definition of a triangle and we cannot
imagine one without them – so God’s existence is
part of the definition of God.
Ontological – Structure A7a
Ontological – Structure A8





 NORMAN MALCOLM
Malcolm was a 20th Century CE philosopher who supported
Anselm and Descartes by concentrating on ‘Necessary
Existence’.
He agreed that God is unique and non-contingent and that
existence is a valid predicate
He believed God’s existence was either impossible or
necessary.
He believed the ‘possibility’ of God was proved, so,
according to Malcolm, then God must exits necessarily.
God cannot come into and go out of existence as that would
mean there were times that he was not present and
something greater would have to bring him into existence.
Ontological – Structure A9
 ALVIN PLANTINGA 1
 20 – 21st century Philosopher
 He came up with the idea of possible worlds
or dimensions. (places where there were
minute variations E.g. President Kennedy
might have been a shopkeeper in a different
world)
 This is called ‘Modal logic’ which states
that anything that is possible is necessarily
true. Therefore God’s existence is deduced
(de dicto) as being necessary.
Ontological – Structure A10




 ALVIN PLANTINGA 2
He stated that in one of these ‘worlds’ there is a
being with ‘maximal greatness’.
A being has maximal greatness only if it exists in
every possible world, but this being might not be
maximally great in every other world.
To have maximal greatness entails maximal
excellence ( Omnipotency, Omnisciency,
Omnibenevolence – the basic theistic attributes).
This means that the maximally great being must
logically be maximally great in every world.
Ontological – Structure A11
Ontological – Structure B1






 GAUNILO of MARMOUTIER
Gaunilo used the analogy of a perfect island to satirise
and argue against Anselm and to defend the ‘Fool’.
Gaunilo tried to make Anselm look foolish by saying
that one could imagine a perfect island and, hey presto –
it must also exist in reality.
Anselm responded by saying that an island is a
contingent and material thing; so an island’s perfection
is always subjective & can always be bettered by adding
or subtracting a palm tree or two.
An island must always be compared to another island to
understand its comparative beauty.
Unlike God who is the only necessary being, an island
has no intrinsic maximum.
God is not being compared to another island – God is
greater than everything.
Ontological – Structure B2






 TOMAS AQUINAS (1225 – 1274)
He states that a definition of God limits God in such a
way as to make God irrelevant.
He states that only experience can give us insights into
God
It is a TRANSITIONAL ERROR that we cannot define
or justify God outside of our own spatio-temporal
reality.
If a God were to exist, God would be beyond our
understanding.
He accepts Anselm’s definition of God but disputes that
it proved God’s existence.
We have no universally agreed definition of God so
Anselm’s ‘proof’ falls down on the first premise.
Ontological – Structure B3





 IMMANUEL KANT (1724 – 1804)
He contested that reason could ‘prove’ God.
He said than only FAITH could lead to God.
He says “ How is the argument proved if
atheists still don’t believe the argument?”
He disputed that existence was a predicate.
The terms existence or even, non-existence
do not further our understanding of God.
Ontological – Structure B4




 FOLLOWING ON FROM KANT
We cannot simply ‘exist’ in the way we
understand.
Even though the argument is ‘A Priori’, it still
rests on some prior knowledge and understanding
of God to validate it (Anselm KNEW God
existed).
Maybe it might be valid in a subjective, anti-realist
sense, but not objectively.
As DAVID HUME (Scottish 1711 – 1776) put it:
“You cannot define something into existence”.
Ontological – Structure B5




 GOTTLOB FREGE German (1848 – 1925)
He follows on from Kant and distinguishes
between 1st and 2nd order predicates.
1st order ones tell us about the nature of something
and further our understanding of reality. Eg: the
horses are brown.
2nd order ones tell us about concepts and do not
further our understanding apart from conceptually.
Eg horses are numerous.
Frege believe that both Anselm and Descartes use
existence as a 1st order when it is really a 2nd.
Ontological – Structure B6
 BERTRAND RUSSELL 1 British (1872 – 1970)
 He said that existence cannot be a predicate.
 If it were we could construct the following
strange syllogism:
 1/ Men exist
 2/ Santa Claus is a man
 3/ Therefore Santa Claus exists
 We have added a concept (2) onto a fact (1) and
expect to get another fact but, as we can see,
we end up with another concept (3).
Ontological – Structure B7
 BERTRAND RUSSELL 2 British (1872 – 1970)
 Russell says that existence is not a property of
things but of the ideas of those things.
 He said to label and define something is to provide
an intention. Eg A cow is a quadruped with udders
– my intention is to describe the cow.
 The fact that the cow exists provides an extension
to my intention. So, existence is an extension of an
intention. A unicorn would have an intention in its
definition but, as far as we know, no extension.
 He agrees with Anselm’s TTWNGCBC, but NOT
Anselm’s belief that this proves God’s existence in
reality.
Ontological – Structure B8
 KARL BARTH – Swiss (1886 – 1968)
 He is coming from a theological angle as
well as a philosophical one.
 Bart states “You have to have faith in God
before you attempt to analyse these ideas,
then you use these new ideas to tell us more
of God – not the other way around.
Ontological – Structure B9




 BRIAN DAVIES 1 British (1951 - )
He is a Dominican Friar & a Catholic Priest.
He illustrates the improbability of some of
the arguments by satirising:
“A pixie is a little man with pointed ears.
Therefore there actually exists a pixie!”
He says that Malcolm favours moving from
the premise, ‘A pixie is a little man with
pointed ears’ to the conclusion, ‘Therefore
there actually exists a pixie!’
 Malcolm has gone from 1/ to 2/ (see next slide)
Ontological – Structure B10





 BRIAN DAVIES 1 British (1951 - )
He says the word ‘is’ is used in 2 different ways.
1/ It can be used to defines something – Eg a queen
is a female monarch.
2/ It can be used to explain there actually is
something. Eg there is such a thing as a vampire.
1st says nothing about existence (nothing about an
existent queen – it only explains what the word
‘queen’ means).
2nd still says nothing about existence and is not
defining anything. It implicitly supposes existence.
Ontological – Structure B11
 J N FINDLAY British
 He wrote in the publication, ‘Mind’ in 1948
 “Can God’s existence be Disproved?”
 Findlay used a form of the ontological
argument to try to DISPROVE God.