Are Ontological Arguments Convincing?
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that ontological arguments are no convincing and therefore does not
show that God exists. Firstly, I will show that Anselm’s ontological arguments are unconvincing through
both of Gaunilo’s objections the second being less crucial. I will then show that through Hume’s Fork
Ontological Arguments about existence is not possible and lastly and most crucially I will show that
existence is not a predicate and there ontological arguments will never work and it is most convincing as it
deals with objections well.
RICE 1:
R: Gaunilo’s Second Objection. If it is the case that something that exists in both mind and reality is more
perfect then to exist just in the mind as suggested by Anselm then the implications can turn quite absurd.
You could prove that anything perfect must exist if it is more perfect to exist then not. For example I
conceive of the most perfect island. It’d be more perfect island if it existed then if it didn’t therefore the
island must exist. Not only this perfectness of island is subjective - everyone’s idea of a perfect island is
different and so each perfect island has to exist? It is clear how ridiculous the argument is.
I: This argument only works for God. There is something specifically in thinking ‘the greatest conceivable
being doesn't exist’ whereas in comparison the ‘greatest conceivable island doesn't exist’ is coherent.
There is nothing in the concept of island that makes it essentially or necessarily the greatest conceivable
island. For example an island MUST be a body of land surrounded by water - an island attached to land is
inconceivable cause the very concept of island is that it is surrounded by water. Islands aren't essentially
great unlike God you is the greatest conceivable being by definition - God wouldn't be God if he wasn’t so.
And so it is an essential property and so it is a different argument.
C: Whilst the initial objection is quite weak, the response doesn't really answer the essence of Gaunilo’s
objection. Just cause we can conceive of God as the greates conceivable being it does not follow that he
actually is. We can only say that IF God were to exist then God would be the greatest conceviable being.
So before we can say he is the greatest conceivable being we must first show he exists - which is the
whole point
E: Therefore, God can’t really be showed. It isn’t that crucial because the initial objection is quite weak.
RICE 2:
R: Hume’s Conceivability Objection. If God’s existence is necessary then the negation would be a
contradiction. However ‘God doesn't exist’ is not a contradiction. Is something was a contradiction ie
logically impossible we would be able to conceive it. For example we would be able to conceive a triangle
with four sides and that is a logical contradiction as by definition a triangle has 3 sides. Whatever we
conceive as existent we can also conceive as non-existent - anyone. This applies asw with God’s
existence - we can conceive his non - existence as well as his existence. Therefore his non-existence is
not a contradiction and therefore God exists is not an analytic truth - so we can’t use Ontology to show
existence of God. If anything, any statements regarding existence must be a synthetic truth as claims
about what exists are matters of facts
I: Descartes could fight back He could say that God exists is a synthetic truth that can be known by a
priori reflection. You can object the premise that whatever we conceive as existent we can also conceive
as non-existent and say that the nature of God means that we can’t. Because our minds are finite we
normally think of the divine perfections eg omnipotence, necessary existence separately and so we don’t
notice that they entail one another. If we reflected carefully we would find that we cannot conceive of one
while excluding the other - we can’t conceive of an omnipotent God without him necessarily existing. It is
a product of rational intuition
Are Ontological Arguments Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that ontological arguments are no convincing and therefore does not
show that God exists. Firstly, I will show that Anselm’s ontological arguments are unconvincing through
both of Gaunilo’s objections the second being less crucial. I will then show that through Hume’s Fork
Ontological Arguments about existence is not possible and lastly and most crucially I will show that
existence is not a predicate and there ontological arguments will never work and it is most convincing as it
deals with objections well.
RICE 1:
R: Gaunilo’s Second Objection. If it is the case that something that exists in both mind and reality is more
perfect then to exist just in the mind as suggested by Anselm then the implications can turn quite absurd.
You could prove that anything perfect must exist if it is more perfect to exist then not. For example I
conceive of the most perfect island. It’d be more perfect island if it existed then if it didn’t therefore the
island must exist. Not only this perfectness of island is subjective - everyone’s idea of a perfect island is
different and so each perfect island has to exist? It is clear how ridiculous the argument is.
I: This argument only works for God. There is something specifically in thinking ‘the greatest conceivable
being doesn't exist’ whereas in comparison the ‘greatest conceivable island doesn't exist’ is coherent.
There is nothing in the concept of island that makes it essentially or necessarily the greatest conceivable
island. For example an island MUST be a body of land surrounded by water - an island attached to land is
inconceivable cause the very concept of island is that it is surrounded by water. Islands aren't essentially
great unlike God you is the greatest conceivable being by definition - God wouldn't be God if he wasn’t so.
And so it is an essential property and so it is a different argument.
C: Whilst the initial objection is quite weak, the response doesn't really answer the essence of Gaunilo’s
objection. Just cause we can conceive of God as the greates conceivable being it does not follow that he
actually is. We can only say that IF God were to exist then God would be the greatest conceviable being.
So before we can say he is the greatest conceivable being we must first show he exists - which is the
whole point
E: Therefore, God can’t really be showed. It isn’t that crucial because the initial objection is quite weak.
RICE 2:
R: Hume’s Conceivability Objection. If God’s existence is necessary then the negation would be a
contradiction. However ‘God doesn't exist’ is not a contradiction. Is something was a contradiction ie
logically impossible we would be able to conceive it. For example we would be able to conceive a triangle
with four sides and that is a logical contradiction as by definition a triangle has 3 sides. Whatever we
conceive as existent we can also conceive as non-existent - anyone. This applies asw with God’s
existence - we can conceive his non - existence as well as his existence. Therefore his non-existence is
not a contradiction and therefore God exists is not an analytic truth - so we can’t use Ontology to show
existence of God. If anything, any statements regarding existence must be a synthetic truth as claims
about what exists are matters of facts
I: Descartes could fight back He could say that God exists is a synthetic truth that can be known by a
priori reflection. You can object the premise that whatever we conceive as existent we can also conceive
as non-existent and say that the nature of God means that we can’t. Because our minds are finite we
normally think of the divine perfections eg omnipotence, necessary existence separately and so we don’t
notice that they entail one another. If we reflected carefully we would find that we cannot conceive of one
while excluding the other - we can’t conceive of an omnipotent God without him necessarily existing. It is
a product of rational intuition
Are Ontological Arguments Convincing? 1
