The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument (comes from the Greek word 'onto' meaning existence) is a series of arguments for the existence of God and is perhaps one of the most profound issues in philosophy. It is based on reason and logic and is an a priori, deductive, analytic argument, as it does not depend on the empirical world.

The classical form of the argument was postulated by St. Anselm, an Italian monk and Archbishop of Canterbury in his prayer, the Proslogion. Anselm defined God as a "being than which nothing greater can be conceived." The Proslogion, he directed towards "the fool who has said in his heart, there is no God." His argument is a form of deductive metaphysics and he comes from the 'faith seeking understanding' standpoint' for those "who seek to understand what they believe." The Proslogion, Anselm used to attempt a type of argument known as a reductio ad absurdum to reduce the fool's argument to absurdity.

In his first form of the argument, Anselm argues that in order to be able to reject God, the fool must have an inderstanding in his mind of what God is. He maintains that what exists in re (in reality) must also exist in the mind (in intellectu) and that it is better to exist in reality and to be real, than to exist in the mind. Therefore, as the fool understands God and exists in his mind, he must also exist in reality; proof by contradiction.

The second form of Anselm's argument can be found in Proslogion 3, where he speaks of necessary existence. Anselm argues that it is better to be a necessary being than to be a contingent being; humans are contingent, but God is not, as he does not depend on anything to exist. As God is the greatest conceivable being, he must be necessary, and Anselm argues he is de dicto necessary. John Hick maintained that "God is defined in such a way that it is impossible to conceive of Him not existing."

Rene Descartes revived Anselm's argument 500 years later in 'Meditations V'. Descartes was a rationalist philosopher who sought to use reason and is renowned for stating "cogito, ergo sum," (I think, therefore I am.) He defined God as a "supremely perfect being" and began by arguing that existence is a predicate; he said in the same way a triangle needs three sides, in order to be complete, God needs to exist in order to be the "supremely perfect being" he spoke of. This Cartesian thought process means that logically God must exist, as the definition of God requires he exist.

In more recent years, Norman Malcolm proposed his form of the ontological argument in 'Philosophical Review.' His cogent argument entails believing that the notion of God not existing is false, since he has to exist by definition. Since God can't be contingent, his existence is either impossible or necessary, but God can not not exist, therefore, he must be necessary.

In 'Nature and Necessity', Alvin Plantinga uses modal logic to formulate his argument. Plantinga maintains that we can imagine alternate worlds and that God can exist in all possible worlds, as he is a "maximally great" and "maximally excellent" being.

The 11th Benedictine monk, Gaunilo, attacked Anselm's argument in "On Behalf of the Fool". He created an argument based on the notion of a perfect island. By the logic of Anselm's argument, the perfect island must exist, since if you can think of it in intellectu, it must also exist in re. Here, he attempts a reductio ad absurdum. He argues that, following Anselm's logic, this is fallacious as it does not bring the island into existence. We could bring all sorts into existence. However, Anselm responded to Gaunilo using Proslogion 3, arguing the island possesses contingent existence and can always be improved, believing Gaunilo misunderstood him.

St. Thomas Aquinas reformulated the criticism, calling it "intellectually arrogant." Aquinas maintained that the human mind is fallible and can not comprehend God's existence, as he is so superior, only he can understand it. Furthermore, he suggested that Anselm made a transitional error moving from the definition of God, to God's existence. For Aquinas, knowledge needs to come from a posteriori arguments.

It is heavily believed that German philosopher Immanuel Kant provided devastating blows to the OS, in 'The Critique of Pure Reason', believing it was fallacious. He believed that it doesn't make sense to have a necessary being, only contingent, as necessity can only attach itself to the analytic. Furthermore, he argued that existence is not a predicate, as it doesn't improve our understanding of that being and in response to Descartes, maintained "no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three sides."

Cambridge philosopher G.E. Moore postulated a tiger analogy:

1 - Tigers growl

2 - Tigers exist

Moore's argument lies in knowing the growl is a predicate, whereas exist places it in reality; therefore, existence is not a predicate. Similarly, Bertrand Russell used cows:

1 - Cows are brown

2 - Cows do exist

The same logic applies.

In conclusion, despite its strengths, the ontological argument ultimately succumbs to its critics. Removing predicates and reducing necessary existence to nothing completely devastates the basis of the ontological argument for the existence of God. As Richard Dawkins maintains, "the doctrine that existence is perfection is remarkably queer."