The Ontological Argument

Who is God?

If someone asks for proof of God, this suggests that the existence of God is in question. People have many different beliefs about God, so how can God be described universally if He means different things to different people? In music, we need to hear more than one piece to fully appreciate the value of music. God is just the same, in that He has many qualities, and as an infinite being, He cannot be defined by finite, human terms. Most respected philosophers of various world religions have stressed that God is not a being or object like any other in the universe. Therefore, God cannot be imagine in His/Her essential nature by the human mind. In Christianity, Thomas Aquinas wrote "We do not know what God is." He referred to God as an "unlimited ocean of being." In Judaism, Moses Maimonides wrote that we cannot say anything positive about God at all, but only what God is not.

89475a24-414d-4354-a6b6-b8f946adc444 (image/jpg)

Pie de foto: : All of this would suggest that God is so far from being a finite, picturable being, that it might be better to say that God is 'nothing' ('not-a-thing') than to say He is a thing. This is a negative or apophatic way of thinking. God is therefore the ultimate mystery of being, ungraspable by human thought.

Anselm's Definition of God

Most writers would agree with Anselm's claims that God is: Self-existent - God does not depend on anything else for existence. All existence is derived from God, God is supreme value - everything that is worthwhile, that could be chosen by a fully rational being, exists in God in an unsurpassable way, in that nothing is better or greater than God. "Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God.""  - Psalm 14:1Anselm used this Bible verse as a basis to develop his argument. He claimed that we all have a concept of God, through intelligent design or the idea of an afterlife, for example. Therefore, it is foolish to believe there is no God, because His existence is obvious.

c2daab85-c814-4f06-a92b-aca56d1ff658 (image/jpg)

The Ontological Argument

Ontology = the study of nature, characteristics and definition of something that exists. Therefore, the Ontological Argument is studying the definition of God and proving His existence through the definition. This argument is analytic, as it is true by definition,. The argument is also deductive and a priori, as it does not require experience as the basis for the argument. It is basic logic that if the premise of the reasoning is true and the structure of the argument is valid, then the conclusion must be true. Is the definition of God a priori or a posteriori knowledge?God is thought of to have the following qualities; omnibenevolence omnipotence omniscience perfect immanence transcendent eternal

2fd1d2e4-4e57-475c-9940-2d7760f2a535 (image/jpg)

Anselm's Ontological Argument

The argument was first put forward by Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1093. He said that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This means that it is impossible to imagine anything greater than God. He started with this definition because it is accepted by everyone, even atheists. Something that exists is much greater than something that doesn't. e.g) When it comes to spending power, actual money is much greater than an imaginary wad of notes. Anselm reasoned that if God is perfect in every way, then he must exist, because a God that exists in our minds, but not in reality is not as good as one which exists in both, so by definition, God would not be perfect if he did not exist. Anselm put forward this argument to prove a point to atheists. The argument is 'reductio ad absurdum' (reducing to absurdity) because for Anselm, God already exists and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. 

However, for God to be God, he must be much more than just existent. Anselm therefore argued that God's existence is necessary.  To suggest that God is necessary is to say that there is no possibility of God not existing.  As previously mentioned, Anselm described God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived."  Something that can be brought out of existence (contingency) is much less great than something that is necessary (that cannot not exist). Therefore, as the greatest possible being, God must be necessary. 

Gaunilo's Criticism of Anselm

Gaunilo was a monk and thus, a,believer in God, but he challenged Anselm's illogical argument. The purpose of Anselm's argument seems to be to define God into existence. But this is impossible. Gaunilo used the idea of the 'perfect island' to criticise Anselm's claims in his work, On Behalf of The Fool. If someone was to imagine the perfect island, it would exist in their mind. Anselm would reason that because the island is the most perfect, it has to exist in the reality as well as just in the mind. However, such an island doesn't have to exist, just because someone is capable of imagining it.  Furthermore, for this perfect island to be perfect, it must be unlike any other existing islands. In this case, it could not have actual existence, but can only exist in the imagination. 

1e232ff6-e2ef-4877-9402-db83e32f6d8c (image/jpg)

Anselm's Counter Argument

Anselm responded to Gaunilo's criticism, by saying that the idea of a perfect island and God were incomparable. An island is contingent, as it depends on something else for existence and doesn't have to exist necessarily. However, God is necessary because he has to exist. God is also different to a perfect island because he is not a thing, but God.  Anselm claimed that his earlier argument wasn't to prove the existence of contingent islands, but to show that the greatest thing in existence is God. His first argument still applies to God, but not to contingent things. If Gaunilo had spoken of an island "that than which nothing greater can be conceived," it still wouldn't successfully refute Anselm's argument. An island can always be bettered, for example,  by having another lagoon or an extra palm tree. Also, everyone's perceptions of what the perfect island is, are all different.

8627bf47-607a-458b-b8e6-de540baf1567 (image/jpg)

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)

Descartes is said to be the father of modern philosophy. He was a French mathematician who insisted on thinking for himself, rather than just accepting what he was taught. (Sound like anyone?) Descartes believed he could establish the philosophical and mathematical foundations for all of human knowledge.  He wrote many books, the most famous being Philosophical Essays, which included Discourse on Method, Meditations, and the Principles of Philosophy.  He wrote most of his philosophy in Protestant Holland, away from Catholic dogma.  Descartes' methods included investigating the internal workings of the mind, in relation to the external world. He emphasised the difference between perceiving and thinking.  In Discourse on Method, Descartes sought to discover a new kind of accurate, scientific knowledge by following simple, procedural rules. His methods were objective and logical, and he was impressed by what mathematics and sciences such as astronomy could achieve. 

In Meditations, he questioned all empirical knowledge, defining himself as a sceptical philosopher. By applying a technique of radical, sceptical doubt, he found he couuld destroy his belief in anything. He even tries to question God's existence, and expresses a clear and distinct idea of God, that did not result from empirical knowledge. "My senses lie to me. They inform me that straight sticks in water are bent. There is no conclusive way to prove that all my experiences aren't just dreams or hallucinations. - Descartes Descartes even considered the possibility that his abstract thoughts might be illusory or wrong. An invisible demon might be hypnotising him into thinking that he was awake and performing accurate mathematical calculations when he wasn't.

Rene Descartes: Cognito ergo Sum

Descartes' doubting of science and mathematical reasoning is referred to as Cartesian doubt. He found that the method was ruthless - if you doubted one scientific fact, then it led you to doubt another scientific fact, and so on. Descartes suggested that there is no knowledge that can be guaranteed. He could not even be certain that his own body was real.  He was, however, certain that his thoughts existed. Descartes' Cartesian doubt is a form of thinking, so trying to doubt that you are thinking by thinking is impossible. With this insight, Descartes coined his famous phrase, 'Cognito ergo sum,' which is Latin for 'I think, therefore I am.' From this breakthrough, he went on to prove that humans are dualist beings (spiritual minds inhabiting physical bodies). Descartes theorised that our bodies were like machines that would perish, and our minds where immortal, but never made it clear how the mind and body interact. Descartes thought that God would guarantee abstract, rational thinking that was as 'clear and distinct' as the original 'Cognito' itself.  This means that our clear, mathematical thinking about the world is correct, but our sensory experiences of it are subjective and flawed. Descartes uses his scepticism to establish what sorts of certain knowledge there are.

86ca98c0-c3d6-4fb0-92d5-c0a604275bf3 (image/jpg)

The Cartesian Circle

Descartes referred to the Cartesian circle as proof that God exists.  There are numerous problems with Descartes' approach. It seems odd that our senses 'lie' to us, and also odd to have to rely on God as a guarantor of mathematical certainty.  It is impossible to guarantee the clear and distinct rule with a truth-telling deity, if you have already claimed that you know He exists because you have a clear and distinct idea of Him in your mind.  Descartes needs God to guarantee his rule, and his rule to guarantee God.

55ed45b1-abaa-4564-915b-608ecc639503 (image/jpg)

Descartes reasoned that demonstrating the existence of God isn't about truth or falsehood, but it is about showing the reason to never doubt God. Maths cannot be doubted, so God's truth is similar to the truth of maths. He claimed that God must be ultimately perfect in every way in order to be God. Therefore, because God is supremely perfect, he possesses all perfections. These include beauty, goodness, eternity and existence. To Descartes, existence is a predicate of perfection. This means that there can be no concept of God without existence - God's perfection and existence are inseparable qualities. Descartes likens God's existence to a triangle. He stated it was impossible to imagine a triangle without three sides. Just as three sides are inseparable from a triangle, existence is an inseparable quality of God. (This premise, oddly enough, is known as Descartes' triangle).  Descartes' argument is also a reductio ad absurdum claim, as it starts with a proposition and shows it is impossible to reject the proposition through logical reasoning. 

Descartes' Ontological Argument

b05abb87-875e-4290-864c-4589dfc48257 (image/jpg)

Pie de foto: : "Existence can be no more separated from the essence of God than the fact that it's three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle, or then the idea of a mountain can be separated from a valley." - Descartes

Kant's Criticism

Kant concluded that all the Ontological argument was doing was providing a definition of God to see whether the world might have such a being that could fulfil the criterion. The a priori is really a synthetic hypothesis, and not analytical at all. As an analytical argument, it is circular, and merely says something like; 'God is an existing being, so God exists.' Kant also criticises Descartes' use of existence as a predicate. He argued that adding existence to a concept doesn't add anymore understanding or description to the idea. Kant concludes that if God's necessary existence is an analytic statement, then it is a definition that tells us nothing about whether he actually exists. Kant therefore dismisses the Ontological argument as pointless. However, are Kant's claims correct? Think of a Yeti and its qualities. When we have evidence that it actually exists, it does add something to the idea of a Yeti - it adds existence. 

bc8afb56-1029-4f48-9c0d-d50b26b08253 (image/jpg)

Kant's Criticism cont'd

Kant further criticised Descartes by saying that although rejecting the three sides of a triangle is contradictory, there is still no problem with rejecting the entire triangle. He applies this to God, as no one can accept God and not his necessary existence, however, people can reject the notion of God altogether. One can define something any way one likes, but whether or not it matches that definition in reality is another question.  THE PARADOX: Kant argued that existence is not a predicate because a predicate must give us information about an object. By saying 'X exists', we have no information about X. However, the opposite statement is also true; if 'X exists' tells us about a property that X has, then 'X doesn't exist' denies that it has this property. But how can something that doesn't exist lack anything?

7ae5eaa1-5430-43c0-9e40-19c667ea7d08 (image/jpg)

Other Criticism

Gottlob Frege distinguished first and second order predicates. First order predicates tell us about the nature of something (e.g. the horses are brown). Second order predicates tell us about concepts (e.g. the horses are numerous). Frege explains that Anselm and Descartes seem to use existence as a first order predicate, when it is actually a second order predicate. Bertrand Russell claims that Anselm defines existence wrong, as existence cannot be a predicate. If it were, it would be possible to construct a syllogism such as the following; Men exist.Santa Claus is a man.Therefore, Santa Claus exists. It is an a priori argument which includes no empirical evidence of God, which is why some philosophers find it weak.

Norman Malcolm thought Anselm's first argument was flawed, but approved of the second that stated that God's necessary existence cannot be affected by anything. If God does not exist, he cannot be brought into existence, so his existence is possible. Equally, if God does exist then he cannot have been brought into existence, nor can he cease to exist. Therefore, for God not to exist becomes logically absurd.  Gareth Moore compared God to an equator - no one claims that the equator doesn't exist, but there isn't a line drawn around the world. Similarly, God's existence is as real for believers as the equator. All bad news?Iris Murdoch argued that Anselm's logic seemed flawed, but he was actually demonstrating how transcendent God is within our finite and limited understanding of Him.