PHILOSOPHY A-LEVEL
ARGUMENTS RELATING TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Overview
- An a priori argument for God’s existence (a deductive argument, the premises of which are knowable
without reliance on empirical evidence).
- Essentially, claims that we can prove God’s existence just by thinking about the term ‘God’, and that denying
God’s existence is contradictory and foolish.
- First formulated by St Anselm in 11thC, defended by Descartes in 17thC, has modern advocates like Alvin
Plantinga.
-
Anselm’s First Ontological Argument
- This is a deductive argument with a priori premises posed by Anselm.
- This argument claims that since existence in reality is a greater than existence in the mind alone, and since
God is by definition the greatest being, he must exist in reality. If God exists only in the mind, i.e. not in
reality, then we can conceive of a greater being.
- In a Premise / Conclusion format:
1. In our minds we have an idea of God, which is this: by definition, God is a being than which none
greater can be conceived (i.e. for any being x, if you can imagine another being greater than x, then
x is not God).
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone (for example, real cake is greater
than imaginary cake).
3. So if God existed only in the mind, then we’d be able to conceive of something greater than Him: a
being with all of the same properties plus existence in reality.
4. But, by premise 1, this cannot be because it would contradict the meaning of ‘God’: a being than
which nothing greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
- This argument can be described as taking the form of reductio ad absurdum. In other words, it attempts to
prove God’s existence by showing that it is absurd to deny it. In this case, it is absurd to claim that God exists
only in the mind, therefore he must also exist in reality.
Objection 1 – Perfect Island (Gaunilo)
- Gaunilo claims that Anselm’s reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. He claims that if Anselm is correct, then
it is not only God’s existence that can be established by this reasoning.
- We can apply Anselm’s reasoning to any superlative concept and conclude that it exists. The example he
gives is that of the perfect island. By definition, it is one none greater than which can be conceived. If it
existed in the mind alone, then we could conceive of one greater (by Anselm’s reasoning), contradicting the
concept of a ‘perfect’ island. So, the perfect island must exist in reality also.
- According to Gaunilo, this is clearly a foolish conclusion, yet we arrived at this conclusion by using Anselm’s
reasoning, so his reasoning must be flawed.
Response – Gaunilo has misapplied reasoning (Plantinga)
- One could argue that Gaunilo has misapplied Anselm’s reasoning, because his reasoning only applies to
concepts that have maximal properties.
, - The qualities that make an island great are not conceptually maximal – no matter how great at island is in
some respect, it is always possible to imagine a greater island. In other words, there is always something that
could make it better. For this reason, the very concept of the perfect island is unintelligible.
- In Plantinga’s words:
o “No matter how great an island is, no matter how many Nubian maidens and dancing girls adorn it,
there could always be a greater one with twice as many, for example. The qualities that make for
greatness in islands-number of palm trees, amount and quality of coconuts, for example-most of
these qualities have no intrinsic maximum. That is, there is no degree of productivity or number of
palm trees (or of dancing girls) such that it is impossible that an island display more of that quality.
So the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent or incoherent idea; it's not possible that
there be such a thing.”
- While the concept of God – a being than which none greater can be conceived – a genuine maximal concept,
a perfect island is not. God’s properties possess intrinsic maximums, for instance omniscience – we cannot
conceive of someone knowing more than an omniscient being – and omnipotence – we cannot conceive of
someone having more power than an omnipotent being.
- Moreover, Plantinga argues that the concept of a perfect island is unintelligible, a pseudo-concept, unlike
the concept of God.
… So far, Gaunilo has tried to object to Anselm’s First Ontological Argument by accusing Anselm of absurdity, but his
objection was destroyed by Plantinga’s argument that he has misapplied Anselm’s reasoning. Anselm’s First
Ontological Argument stands.
Objection 2 – Existence is not a predicate (Kant)
- A predicate is a quality that gives us information about a thing. The more predicates you apply to something,
the more you know about that thing – “is blue”, “is cold”.
- Kant argues that knowing that something exists does not give us any additional information about what it is
like; in other words, he argues that existence is not a predicate. If I describe someone as “very tall, blonde-
ish, has green eyes”, and then add on “exists”, no additional information Is added.
- If existence cannot be treated like a predicate, as Kant argues, then it cannot be regarded as a perfection. In
this case, Anselm is wrong in claiming that existence is a necessary property of a being than which none
greater can be conceived.
- A further problem is that treating existence as a predicate makes us stumble into paradoxes. If we say
“Princess Diana no longer exists”, and we are treating existence as a predicate, then we would be saying that
“Princess Diana lacks existence”. But this is nonsensical – she can’t lack anything if she doesn’t exist. Treating
existence as a predicate jeopardises the coherence of the concept.
… Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate has successfully disproven Anselm’s First Ontological Argument.
Anselm has not yet successfully proven God’s existence.
Anselm’s Second Ontological Argument
- This argument builds on the First Ontological Argument by invoking the idea that necessary existence is
greater than contingent existence. Anselm tries to demonstrate that since, by definition, God is a being than
which none greater can be conceived, and necessary existence is greater than contingent existence, God’s
existence must be necessary and his nonexistence inconceivable.
- (A contingent being is one that might cease to exist or might have never existed in the first place; it is
dependent on other things for its existence. A necessary being has to exist, and its existence depends on
nothing; its nonexistence is metaphysically impossible and inconceivable.
- In a Premise / Conclusion format:
ARGUMENTS RELATING TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Overview
- An a priori argument for God’s existence (a deductive argument, the premises of which are knowable
without reliance on empirical evidence).
- Essentially, claims that we can prove God’s existence just by thinking about the term ‘God’, and that denying
God’s existence is contradictory and foolish.
- First formulated by St Anselm in 11thC, defended by Descartes in 17thC, has modern advocates like Alvin
Plantinga.
-
Anselm’s First Ontological Argument
- This is a deductive argument with a priori premises posed by Anselm.
- This argument claims that since existence in reality is a greater than existence in the mind alone, and since
God is by definition the greatest being, he must exist in reality. If God exists only in the mind, i.e. not in
reality, then we can conceive of a greater being.
- In a Premise / Conclusion format:
1. In our minds we have an idea of God, which is this: by definition, God is a being than which none
greater can be conceived (i.e. for any being x, if you can imagine another being greater than x, then
x is not God).
2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone (for example, real cake is greater
than imaginary cake).
3. So if God existed only in the mind, then we’d be able to conceive of something greater than Him: a
being with all of the same properties plus existence in reality.
4. But, by premise 1, this cannot be because it would contradict the meaning of ‘God’: a being than
which nothing greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore, God must exist in reality.
- This argument can be described as taking the form of reductio ad absurdum. In other words, it attempts to
prove God’s existence by showing that it is absurd to deny it. In this case, it is absurd to claim that God exists
only in the mind, therefore he must also exist in reality.
Objection 1 – Perfect Island (Gaunilo)
- Gaunilo claims that Anselm’s reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. He claims that if Anselm is correct, then
it is not only God’s existence that can be established by this reasoning.
- We can apply Anselm’s reasoning to any superlative concept and conclude that it exists. The example he
gives is that of the perfect island. By definition, it is one none greater than which can be conceived. If it
existed in the mind alone, then we could conceive of one greater (by Anselm’s reasoning), contradicting the
concept of a ‘perfect’ island. So, the perfect island must exist in reality also.
- According to Gaunilo, this is clearly a foolish conclusion, yet we arrived at this conclusion by using Anselm’s
reasoning, so his reasoning must be flawed.
Response – Gaunilo has misapplied reasoning (Plantinga)
- One could argue that Gaunilo has misapplied Anselm’s reasoning, because his reasoning only applies to
concepts that have maximal properties.
, - The qualities that make an island great are not conceptually maximal – no matter how great at island is in
some respect, it is always possible to imagine a greater island. In other words, there is always something that
could make it better. For this reason, the very concept of the perfect island is unintelligible.
- In Plantinga’s words:
o “No matter how great an island is, no matter how many Nubian maidens and dancing girls adorn it,
there could always be a greater one with twice as many, for example. The qualities that make for
greatness in islands-number of palm trees, amount and quality of coconuts, for example-most of
these qualities have no intrinsic maximum. That is, there is no degree of productivity or number of
palm trees (or of dancing girls) such that it is impossible that an island display more of that quality.
So the idea of a greatest possible island is an inconsistent or incoherent idea; it's not possible that
there be such a thing.”
- While the concept of God – a being than which none greater can be conceived – a genuine maximal concept,
a perfect island is not. God’s properties possess intrinsic maximums, for instance omniscience – we cannot
conceive of someone knowing more than an omniscient being – and omnipotence – we cannot conceive of
someone having more power than an omnipotent being.
- Moreover, Plantinga argues that the concept of a perfect island is unintelligible, a pseudo-concept, unlike
the concept of God.
… So far, Gaunilo has tried to object to Anselm’s First Ontological Argument by accusing Anselm of absurdity, but his
objection was destroyed by Plantinga’s argument that he has misapplied Anselm’s reasoning. Anselm’s First
Ontological Argument stands.
Objection 2 – Existence is not a predicate (Kant)
- A predicate is a quality that gives us information about a thing. The more predicates you apply to something,
the more you know about that thing – “is blue”, “is cold”.
- Kant argues that knowing that something exists does not give us any additional information about what it is
like; in other words, he argues that existence is not a predicate. If I describe someone as “very tall, blonde-
ish, has green eyes”, and then add on “exists”, no additional information Is added.
- If existence cannot be treated like a predicate, as Kant argues, then it cannot be regarded as a perfection. In
this case, Anselm is wrong in claiming that existence is a necessary property of a being than which none
greater can be conceived.
- A further problem is that treating existence as a predicate makes us stumble into paradoxes. If we say
“Princess Diana no longer exists”, and we are treating existence as a predicate, then we would be saying that
“Princess Diana lacks existence”. But this is nonsensical – she can’t lack anything if she doesn’t exist. Treating
existence as a predicate jeopardises the coherence of the concept.
… Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate has successfully disproven Anselm’s First Ontological Argument.
Anselm has not yet successfully proven God’s existence.
Anselm’s Second Ontological Argument
- This argument builds on the First Ontological Argument by invoking the idea that necessary existence is
greater than contingent existence. Anselm tries to demonstrate that since, by definition, God is a being than
which none greater can be conceived, and necessary existence is greater than contingent existence, God’s
existence must be necessary and his nonexistence inconceivable.
- (A contingent being is one that might cease to exist or might have never existed in the first place; it is
dependent on other things for its existence. A necessary being has to exist, and its existence depends on
nothing; its nonexistence is metaphysically impossible and inconceivable.
- In a Premise / Conclusion format:
