Ontological Argument | EssayIvy.com

Running head: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1

Does the ontological argument prove God's existence?

Name

Institute name

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 2

Does the ontological argument prove God's existence?

1.0 Introduction

The Ontological argument is possibly the most interesting and sound argument that tries to

explain the existence of God. This is because it acts as a “test case” for the philosophical

reasoning and whether the facts raised about the nature of reality are valid (Cupitt, 1980).

This paper aims to expound whether the ontological argument serves as logical reasoning

suggesting God's existence in the universe. I’ll explain what the argument reveals about

God’s existence and provide various philosophers questioning on the issue. At the end of the

paper, you'll be able to understand what the Ontological argument does and decide on

whether God exists or not.

2.0 The Ontological Argument

The topic regarding God’s existence and arguments presented is in itself unique theistically.

The Ontological argument in contrast to other existing arguments such as teleological and

cosmological is unique in that it is a priori. Essentially, this means that the ontological

argument explains Gods existence without reliance on the external world, instead, focus on

explaining God’s existence through rational thought.

2.1 Origin

The ontological argument was pioneered by St. Anselm of Canterbury back in 1078 where he

wrote his Proslogium (Anselm, 2009). The argument relies on natural theology and

references priori reasoning to prove God exists. Anselm’s motivation for the argument is

based on the Bible, specifically Psalms Chapter 14 verse 1, which tries to convince a "fool"

of the existence of God. Anselm needed an argument that could not only point out to God’s

presence in the universe but also show He's all-powerful as Christians portray Him.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 3

Anselm idea was that God is the most powerful being in the universe, which in essence must

be true. The basic shape of his argument is simple enough; it defines God as that which can’t

be exceeded or conceived any greater. He continues to say that anything existing realistically

is greater than what exists in people’s mind. This is because it presents a nonsensical

contradiction since if one can think of something greater existing, then one could imagine a

much greater Being in existence that is God. Thus, Anselm concludes that God has to exist in

reality.

2.2 God’s Portrayal regarding Ontological argument

Following Anselm argument on God being the greatest force, it means that all positive and

diving attributes in the universe have to be ascribed to God; no aspect, no praise and no

attribute is left out. This attributes covers but not limited to omniscient, compassionate,

omnipotence, forgiving, omnipresence, omnibenevolence and much more. If any of attributes

regarding God is left out, He will seize to be the greatest being in the universe.

A distinguished philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, formulated a more plausible version of

Anselm's ontological argument. Platinga highlighted God’s perfection and expounded

people's identity and God's definition. Unlike Anselm’s priori reasoning, Plantinga uses a

modal form to convey the basis of his argument. Modal form entails using the logic of the

necessary and the possible. His argument boils down to three ideas including a maximally

excellent being, possible words and maximally great being (Plantinga, 1968).

A possible world is that which there is a maximal depiction of reality or an alternative

possibility of how reality could be. Another view of a possible world could be a place in

which there exist all propositions or its contradictory, to generate a maximum description of

reality. Nevertheless, only one arrangement of either positive or negative proposition can be

included to match actual reality. Plantinga agrees with Anselm on the view of God that he is

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 4

all-powerful, maximally excellent, omnipotence, omniscience and morally perfect. Finally,

since a maximally great being can exist in every possible world, God with all maximum

properties exist everywhere.

2.3 Authenticity of the Ontological Argument

The simplicity of the ontological argument has had many subsequent studies and critics who

have expressed rebuttals and criticisms. I’ll be discussing the most common objectives

presented by various philosophers:

2.3.1 Gaunilo’s Conceptual Objection

Gaunilo who was a monk and lived under the contemporary of Anselm argued by the fool.

Gaunilo argued that if God were all-powerful and beyond human comprehension, both

Anselm and Plantinga's premises would be wrong since the very concept of comprehending

God is unimaginable. The ontological argument assumes that man can understand what God

is and can do and the whole idea of God is coherent. Platinga, however, believes this is a

valid assumption and doesn't pose a threat to the argument (Millican, 2004).

Nevertheless, modern philosophical works on theism suggest that the idea of comprehending

God is very likely. Studies from cosmology, teleological, morality also support the idea of

understanding God is very likely.

2.3.2 Kant Predicate Objection

Kant existed in the eighteenth century who criticized the ontological argument by Anselm in

his writings, "The Critique of Pure Reason." Immanuel Kant's main objective was that the

world is not a perfection and therefore, not a quality of God. This means existence can’t

function as a real God’s attribute.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 5

He continues to say that the idea of existence doesn’t add value to the God’s concept and thus

not a true predicate. Should this be true, Anselm argument is wrong since he argues on the

concept itself and God’s existence in the first place.

Kant's objection, however, has been criticized by fellow philosopher Douglas Groothuis.

Groothius argued that since people are questioning about God existing in the first place, it

cannot be assumed or presupposed (God’s existence). He agrees that it is possible that God

may not exist and therefore theorizing existence as a genuine basis of God is correct and

doesn’t for a threat on the argument. Kant’s argument on applies to Anselm first form of

argument and not to Plantinga's argument. Platinga’s argument doesn’t assume God’s

existence as one of His property, and thus Kant's objection isn't plausible (Plantinga, 1966).

2.3.3 Richard Dawkins

Dawkins wrote in his book about his disapproval on the ontological argument. Dawkins, a

well-known atheist, tries hard to disapprove the theory by attacking the argument even

referring it to various names such as “machinist trickery” and “dialectical prestidigitation.”

His main aim is to disapprove God's existence and uses the reverse argument to put his point

across. He argues that the more the handicap of a creator, the more impressive the creation.

He continues to say that, God being non-existent is the most impressive handicap of all time.

He suggests that since a living God is not higher than the non-existing God who formed the

universe, then an existing God doesn’t exist.

This theory doesn't add much since it contradicts itself in terms. There is no way a non-

existing God can create anything; he simply doesn't exist! Therefore, as inconsistent as

Dawkin was, the theory poses no threat to the ontological argument (Dawkins, 2008).

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 6

2.3.4 Quasi-Maximal Beings

This can be considered as one of the most formidable threats to the ontological argument. A

quasi-maximal being represents a being that is almost perfect in all areas except for only one,

like imperfect omniscience. This begs the question as to why this is not a logical thinking of

existing beings. Dr. William Lane Craig argues that quasi-maximal beings are more likely to

exist as the maximal beings and the two cannot coexist. If there is the possibility of

maximally great beings existence, then they do exist as the ontological argument has.

Since maximally great being possesses omnipotence as property, it conflicts with quasi-

maximally being nature of natural existence that is required of the maximally great being. As

omnipotent, nothing apart from perfection created by the excellence of maximally great being

should exist. A quasi-maximally being needed to exist independently of the maximally great

being' omnipotence thus presenting a contradiction.

Since a maximally great being created worlds, quasi-maximally being can exist in said

worlds. But since the maximally great being can choose not to have any creation in a given

world, then the quasi-great being will lack the ability of the said natural existence and will

lack maximal greatness. Finally, there is the possibility of a quasi-maximally great being

existence as there is the possibility of a maximally excellent being. However, these two

cannot coexists, and therefore only the maximally great can occur.

2.3.5 Other Possible objections

Two more objects exist that question the ontological argument. The first premise is the

definition of God. The notion of a maximally great being should be considered incoherent but

rather incorrect. That is, there exists a possibility of God being a quasi-maximally excellent

being. Anselm argument is based on God being one that nothing greater can be conceived.

However, what if the whole understanding of God was wrong? Where did Anselm get his

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 7

idea from? One may argue that there are biblical scriptures that supports his suggestion but

are they enough? Should he have referred to the Bible for his argument, then his ontological

argument would have been posteriori and not priori. This, however, doesn't disprove his

argument as invalid but rather, redefines it categorically. Another question that needs asking

is that: if the Bible wasn't present to humankind, would people still have the same idea of a

maximally great being that is God?.

3.0 Conclusion

Evidently, the ontological argument requires intense reflection and clear thought. For most

people, the argument is either beyond comprehension or goes beyond practicality. Based on

the arguments presented, the ontological argument lacks evidence to support the existence of

a Superior being or existence of a semi-powerful being.

The argument, however, does present a valid argument for the existence of a maximally

excellent being that theist considers rational and persuasive. It provides a good foundation for

other arguments to support it and if not, doesn't pose a threat to other theistic arguments in

support of God.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 8

4.0 References:

Anselm, S. (2009). Proslogion. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/rec/ANSP

Cupitt, D. (1980). Taking leave of God. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/rec/CUPTLO

Dawkins, R. (2008). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Millican, P. (2004). The one fatal flaw in Anselm’s argument. Mind, 113(451), 437–476.

Plantinga, A. (1966). Kant’s objection to the ontological argument. The Journal of

Philosophy, 63(19), 537–546.

Plantinga, A. (1968). The ontological argument. Macmillan. Retrieved from

http://apollos.ws/ontological-argument/Plantinga%20-

%20The%20Ontological%20Argument.pdf

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."