Can ontological argument successfully prove the existence of God? [40]
Introduction:
Ontological arguments are unsuccessful in their attempts to prove the existence of God through rational a priori means,
by analysing the qualities of God, specifically his ‘perfect’ nature. These are deductive arguments, intended to establish
God’s existence with the same level of certainty as mathematical / geometrical truths. They begin with the view that
God (a being greater than which cannot be conceived), must exist, as it would be reductio ad absurdum to state
otherwise. There have been several ontological arguments such as St. Anselm’s and Renes Descartes’, but all of them fail
to be convincing because they treat existence as a predicate and Kant successfully establishes that this is a false claim.
AO1:
The first ontological argument was established by St. Anselm in c.1077 in his text the Proslogion. It is set out in the form
of a prayer and states that ‘I do not seek to understand so that I may believe. Rather I believe so that I may seek to
understand’. It begins by claiming we have a conception of God as ‘a being greater than which cannot be conceived’.
From this, we can understand that it is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. Therefore, God (the
greatest conceivable being) must exist in both the understanding and reality. This appears like a valid and sound
argument at first, as God cannot be any other way; his concept is that of perfection (lacking nothing). Anselm has
established God then exists as a necessary being, and as such it would be a contradiction to state he cannot exist.
AO1+AO2:
This argument fails however as it does not successfully prove that something MUST exist, just because we can conceive
of it as having to exist. This was first attempted to be established by Gaunilo of Marmoutier in his reply ‘On Behalf of the
Fool’, wherein he outlined the ‘Perfect Island’ argument, which seeks to convey the idea that St Anselm’s ontological
argument can be carried onto absurdity, and therefore is unsuccessful in proving the existence of God. He posits that if
you put ‘perfect’ or ‘greatest possible’ onto anything, then apparently this being must exist in reality, such as in the
example of a perfect island. However, Marmoutier’s argument is not a valid objection, as argued by John Hick, wherein
the notion of a perfect island is a contradiction, since islands are contingent beings (subject to endless change), and
therefore Anselm’s argument can only be applied to God, as perfection is tied only to God, and works only in the context
of God. However, although Marmoutier’s objection is flawed, other objections, such as those from St. Thomas Aquinas
successfully break down Anselm’s argument. St. Thomas Aquinas uses the idea of tautology (e.g. man is an animal) to
render Anselm’s theory unconvincing and unsuccessful. He argues that as we cannot define the subject (God), then we
cannot draw out the predicates (qualities of God) attached, and therefore, it is impossible for Anselm to fully know the
concept of God as he argues. Therefore, “because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition that God exists is
not self-evident to us” (Aquinas). Instead, Aquinas argues that we should look to the world through a posteriori
empirical means to prove the existence of God, as highlighted through his teleological arguments. However, some may
argue that due to being in the form of a prayer, Anselm’s argument should not be argued as a theory, and instead was
intended as an exploration of his own faith, and therefore any of the criticisms are invalid. This is a weak counter-
argument however, as Anselm’s argument is one of the fundamental ontological arguments that is drawn upon by many,
and other philosophers and theologians have more than made up for the fact that his argument was not in the form of a
coherent theory. Additionally, his shortcomings allow Descartes to form a stronger ontological argument in comparison.
AO1:
The second ontological argument was the Trademark Argument established by Descartes. Its reasoning relies on
rationalism and argues that God is a clear and distinct idea, which was placed into our minds by God Himself (innatism).
He argues that this is as our minds are finite, and therefore cannot have created the concept of God, an infinite being.
This strong methodology which explains how God is a perfect being makes his theory more convincing than Anselm’s,
however it is still unsuccessful in proving the existence of God, as it is greatly weakened by objections from Kant and
others and is not a sound argument.
