THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

__________________

A Term Paper

Presented to

Instructor: Dan Cates

Memphis School of Preaching

Memphis, Tennessee

——————————

As a Requirement in

Christian Evidences

____________________

By

David Jiménez

January 16, 2021

 The ontological argument for the existence of God

Anselm’s argument

 The “ontological argument for the existence

of God” designates the process of reasoning

in which the theistic idea of God is proved to

be an analytical or logical truth based on a

series of premises.

 It does not seek to give empirical evidence

for the existence of God but simply to

demonstrate the logical necessity of the

reality of God.

 The weight of this argument, if proven to be

accurate, is such that it would eliminate

atheism as a logical position to take leaving as the only opponent of theism a form

of positivism in which, if the premises are rejected, the idea of God is logically

impossible (Hartshorne, 3-4).

 It was first proposed by 11th century philosopher Anselm of Canterbury in the

chapters 2-4 of his work called Proslogion. It has had many different versions and

reinterpretations of the argument throughout the history of philosophy.

 Anselm’s argument goes as follows:

o God is defined as “something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought”.

o This can be thought and thus it exists in the mind.

 o Since “that- than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought” exist in the mind

must, for necessity, exist also out of the mind, since existing solely in the

mind is inferior than existing also in reality.

o Then, this being true makes of necessity the idea of God so evident and clear

that it cannot be thought not to exist, i. e., it exists necessarily and self-

evidently, since that which cannot be thought not to exist is greater than that

which can be thought not to exist: “Hence, if that-than-which-nothing-

greater-can-be-thought can be thought not to exist, then that-than-which-

nothing-greater-can-be-thought is not the same as that-than-which-nothing-

greater-can-be-thought which is absurd” (Anselm, Proslogion, 3).

 The argument, although complicated, has the merit of being logically consequent

with the premises. However, the premise that “because it exists in the mind, it must

exist in reality” has been criticized.

 The first objection was made immediately after the publication of Anselm’s work

by the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. His objection was, essentially, that because

something can be conceived in the mind as existing it does not necessarily exist in

the world.

 This objection is directed mostly to the argument in Proslogion 2, as Hartshorne has

showed (21). Ganuilo’s famous example is that of a perfect island which by

necessity must exist: “For if it did not exist, any other island existing in reality

would be more excellent than it, and so this island will not be more excellen”

(Ganuilo, Pro Insipiente, 6).

  Anselm’s response clarifies the monk’s mistakes. The main aspect to be understood

is that something that exist can be thought to not exist, but that-than-which-nothing-

greater-can-be-thought, if it is thought to not exist, then it is not that-than-which-

nothing-greater-can-be-thought.

 So, that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought, if thought, by definition,

cannot be thought not to exist.

 Now, if something can be thought and does not exist, by definition this object is not

that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought, and so: “It is, then, false that

something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought does not exist if it can

merely be thougt” (Anselm, Reply to Gaunilo, 1).

Other ontological arguments

 Renée Descartes in the 17th century reworked a new form of the ontological

argument in his Fifth Meditation on First Philosophy. In it, the French philosopher

defines God as the supremely perfect being which, by definition, must possess every

perfection.

 This idea lies in the mind as clear and distinct as any other number or figure: “and I

do not know any less clearly and distinctly that an [actual and] eternal existence

pertains to this nature than I know that all that which I am able to demonstrate of

some figure or number truly pertains to the nature of this figure or number”

(Descartes, Fifth Meditation).

 This is derived mostly from the absolute identification between God’s essence and

God’s existence, that is, although I can conceive a winged horse it does not, by
 necessity, exist, because his essence and existence are separated, but the conception

of the supreme being, demands essence and existence eternally bound.

 Since a God without existence is as illogical as a 4 sided triangle, it is an analytical

truth to know that God truly exists.

 The 20th century logician and mathematician Kurt Gödel developed a version of the

argument in the language of modal logic. It has been proven to be consistent with

the axioms.

Another important contribution to the argument was done by Alvin Plantinga in his

book The Nature of Necessity. Plantinga’s argument is summarized as follows:

o An entity with maximal greatness is thus if and only if it is omnipotent,

omniscient and morally perfect.

o An entity possesses maximal greatness if and only if it possesses maximal

greatness in every possible world

o There is a possible world in which there is an entity with maximal greatness.

o Thus… there is an entity which possess maximal greatness.

  This argument is quite problematic, but it is consistent between the axioms and the

conclusion.

 Plantinga has said, however, “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St.

Anselm’s argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or

establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise,

they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion” (Plantinga, 221).

 This complicated argument requires much of our intellect and acquires little in

terms making other people see the rationality of belief in God. It is not the most

popular argument nor the most efficient.

 However, its greatness lies in that it is a way for faith to enter into the realm of

intellect open to see the nature of the cosmos from the stand point of the abstract

thought.

 We would do better to stay with Anselm’s argument, since, it is no argument at all,

but a prayerful reflection of the soul on the inscrutability of God. May we say with

him: “Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam. Nam et hoc

credo: quia "nisi credidero, non intelligam (For I do not seek to understand so that I

may believe; but I believe so that I may understand. For I believe this also, that

‘unless I believe, I shall not understand) (Is 7,9)”.

Consulted works:

Oppy, Graham, "Ontological Arguments", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Spring 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/ontological-arguments/>.

Anselm. The Major works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008.
Hartshorne, Ch. Anselm’s Discovery. La Salle, IL: Open Court. 1965.

Plantinga, A. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1974.

Descartes, R. The Philosophical Works of Descartes. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. 1911.