To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?
Introduction
Define: Ontological- Arguments based on reason.
A priori arguments: Arguments which draw conclusions through the use of reason.
Importance: It claims that simply by thinking logically about what we understand to be the nature of
God and what the implications of that must be, we can deduce that there must be such a God-
anything that claims to have the ability to prove God is going to be looked at as significant.
Scholars: Anselm, Gaunilo, Descartes, Russell, Kant, Plantinga, Aquinas
Conclusion: Unsuccessful in proving the existence of God- meant to be a deductive argument.
Paragraph 1
Point: Anselm unsuccessfully attempts to create an ontological argument to prove the existence of
God which Gaunilo debunks by criticising his attempt to define God into existence.
Argument: Anselm’s First form argument (Proslogion, 1077-8): Premise 1- God is that than which no
greater can be conceived. Premise 2- It is greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind. Conclusion:
Hence there is no doubt there exists a being than that which no greater can be conceived and it
exists in reality and in the mind.
Analytic statements: true by definition- ‘bachelors are unmarried men’. Anselm claims ‘God exists’ is
analytic- concept of God includes concept of existence. Quote: ‘Why, then, did the fool say in his
heart ‘God is not’ since it is so obvious to the rational mind that you exist supremely above all
things’.
Counterargument: Gaunilo was Christian but thought Anselm’s argument was illogical. He swapped
the idea of God with an Island. ‘In Behalf of the Fool’ (1078), he said with such an argument you can
define anything into existence- ‘Imagine a perfect island that than which no greater can be
conceived. If you wanted to go to it, it will not be there.
Counterargument (To First Counterargument): Anselm- God is independent and necessary, Islands
are dependent and contingent. Plantinga (20 th Century) supports Anselm by saying that islands have
no intrinsic maximums, you could always add one more ‘dancing girl’.
Paragraph 2
Point: Descartes unsuccessfully attempts to reinforce Anselm’s ontological but it does not survive
Russell and Kant’s criticisms.
Argument: Descartes claimed that existence was analytically necessary to God as three sides and
three angles adding up to 180 degrees is to a triangle and a valley is to a mountain in Meditations
(1641). For Descartes, God must have existence to be a supremely perfect being because existence is
perfection.
Introduction
Define: Ontological- Arguments based on reason.
A priori arguments: Arguments which draw conclusions through the use of reason.
Importance: It claims that simply by thinking logically about what we understand to be the nature of
God and what the implications of that must be, we can deduce that there must be such a God-
anything that claims to have the ability to prove God is going to be looked at as significant.
Scholars: Anselm, Gaunilo, Descartes, Russell, Kant, Plantinga, Aquinas
Conclusion: Unsuccessful in proving the existence of God- meant to be a deductive argument.
Paragraph 1
Point: Anselm unsuccessfully attempts to create an ontological argument to prove the existence of
God which Gaunilo debunks by criticising his attempt to define God into existence.
Argument: Anselm’s First form argument (Proslogion, 1077-8): Premise 1- God is that than which no
greater can be conceived. Premise 2- It is greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind. Conclusion:
Hence there is no doubt there exists a being than that which no greater can be conceived and it
exists in reality and in the mind.
Analytic statements: true by definition- ‘bachelors are unmarried men’. Anselm claims ‘God exists’ is
analytic- concept of God includes concept of existence. Quote: ‘Why, then, did the fool say in his
heart ‘God is not’ since it is so obvious to the rational mind that you exist supremely above all
things’.
Counterargument: Gaunilo was Christian but thought Anselm’s argument was illogical. He swapped
the idea of God with an Island. ‘In Behalf of the Fool’ (1078), he said with such an argument you can
define anything into existence- ‘Imagine a perfect island that than which no greater can be
conceived. If you wanted to go to it, it will not be there.
Counterargument (To First Counterargument): Anselm- God is independent and necessary, Islands
are dependent and contingent. Plantinga (20 th Century) supports Anselm by saying that islands have
no intrinsic maximums, you could always add one more ‘dancing girl’.
Paragraph 2
Point: Descartes unsuccessfully attempts to reinforce Anselm’s ontological but it does not survive
Russell and Kant’s criticisms.
Argument: Descartes claimed that existence was analytically necessary to God as three sides and
three angles adding up to 180 degrees is to a triangle and a valley is to a mountain in Meditations
(1641). For Descartes, God must have existence to be a supremely perfect being because existence is
perfection.
