I. Introduction

In the year 1098, the monk/arch-bishop/philosopher Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) began work on his third text the Prosologium. Though he had written at length before, primarily on interpretative doctrines of religious theology, in the Prosologium he attempted a bold new task. His attempt was to prove the existence of god, through the means just of reason. His efforts produced “the ontological argument” (sometimes referred to as the “argument from perfection” or the “argument from reason”), debated not just during his time, but also for literally a full millennium after. For this noble effort, he is often credited as being “the father of medieval scholastic thought”
To better acquaint the reader with the circumstances of the authorship of the Ontological Argument, it may be worthwhile to engage in a thought experiment. Imagine you are a monk living in the middle of the middle ages. The church is extremely strong, and rarely does anyone publicly state beliefs other then those of orthodox religion. Nevertheless, times are not well and more and more people are losing faith. Besides just debating the intricacies of religious interpretation, a puzzle enters your mind. Perhaps you could construct an argument that would be powerful enough to convince even those damned heretics of the truth of your faith. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Ah but how could one achieve that feat?
The first thought might be to simply read a passage in the Bible that states that god exists. But if somebody is questioning the existence of god, they probably aren’t going to buy that one. What common ground do you then have with them? Well, the heretics claim to be using reason to support their claims. Hmmm, what if you could use their weapon ? reason ? and fight them on their own turf? This might have been along the lines of what Anselm was thinking in constructing his argument.
In this paper, the author will look first at the properties of Anselm’s Ontological Argument (that it is deductive and a-priori), reflect on the simple historical form and expand that into the full modern form. Then the author will conduct a review by premise, including objections to the soundness of each premise. The links between premises and validity will then be examined. The author will than consider external objections (of which Guanilo’s perfect island argument is an excellent example). Finally, the argument will not be accepted for reasons to be surmised in the conclusion.

II. The argument itself

The most natural place to start is the historical form of the argument. This is literally the argument presented in the Prosologium:
(1) The term “God” is defined as the greatest conceivable being.
(2) Real existence (existence in reality) is greater than mere existence in the understanding
(3) Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the understanding.

The basic intuition is that God refers to the absolute highest being, and a being that did not exist could not fit this description. At first glance, this argument seems exceptionally weak and not fully expressed. To better explain exactly what it is trying to say, philosophers throughout the centuries have expanded the argument. The form I will use is the form that was presented to me in section:
1) Premise: God – who is a being that which none greater is possible – exists in the understanding.
2) Premise: God might have existed in reality
3) Premise: If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater then it is.
4) Suppose god exists only in the understanding
5) Then god might have been greater then he is (2, 4, 3)
6) God is a being that which greater is possible (5)
7) The being that which none greater is possible is a being is a being that which greater is possible (1, 5 – contradiction)
8) It is false that god exists only in the understanding (Proof by Indirect Derivation)
9) God exists in reality and the understanding.

As the reader can probably tell, the expanded form is more complete and more powerful. It starts off with three explicit premises. Then it assumes the opposite of what it wants to show and demonstrates the presence of a contradiction. Since there cannot be a contradiction, the opposite of what was assumed must be true. This is a very valid form of argument called “proof by indirect derivation.”
Before we move on, it will be worthwhile to stop for a moment and take stock of the argument. Read it and think about it. Does it convince you? Your answer was probably no. As Professor Callender said, this argument has never really convinced anybody. There just seems something fundamentally wrong with something existing by its very definition. But what exactly is it? Before we can answer that question, it might be good to look at the three primary properties this argument has that make it unique: Deductivity, A-priori in nature and finally proof by indirect derivation.

III. Deductive Arguments

To draw the distinction as clear as possible, a deductive argument is one that seeks to prove its conclusion with absolute certainty. The following is an example of a deductive argument:
(1) Socrates is a Man
(2) All men are mortal
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal
Note that the argument seeks to show not that Socrates is probably a mortal, but that Socrates is definitely a mortal. An example of an inductive argument would be:
(1) The weatherman is usually right
(2) The weatherman said it would rain
(3) Therefore, it will probably rain
This argument by no means seeks to prove that it will rain; rather it just seeks to show that it will probably rain. An example of an inductive argument for the existence of God would be the argument from fine-tuning.
Deductive arguments have two properties: Validity and Soundness. A deductive argument is valid if and only if its conclusion cannot be false and it’s premises true. Our first example about Socrates was valid. An example of an invalid argument would be:
(1) Aristotle is a Man
(2) All men are mortal
(3) Therefore, All men are Aristotle
Soundness refers to the truth-value of the premises. In other words, an argument contains premises and conclusions. Its premises can be either true or false, and the conclusion can either follow or not follow from the premises. If the conclusion must follow from the premises and the premises are true, the argument is sound. Since the ontological argument is a deductive argument, we shall evaluate it through the course of this paper on the grounds of both validity and soundness. An example of a sound argument would be our first Socrates example, an example of an unsound but valid argument would be:
(1) George Bush is a flower
(2) All flowers are red
(3) Therefore, George Bush is red
As you can see in this example, George Bush is not red nor is he a flower (nor are all flowers red). But if all flowers were red and George Bush was a flower, then he would have to be Red.

IV. Arguments A-priori.
The second important characteristic of the ontological argument is the fact that it is a-priori. A-priori means “before experience (of the world).” The opposite term is a-posteriori, meaning “after experience (of the world).” In recent philosophical literature, this distinction has been attacked and all but refuted (see W.V. Quine: Two Dogmas of Empiricism) ? but for the purposes of this paper, we will continue to use it.
An A-priori argument purports that just by thinking about it, you should be able to prove certain things. For example, if I argued to you that 2+2 = 4, I might do it like this:
1) 4 = 1+1+1+1 [premise]
2) 2 = 1+1
3) 4 = 2 + 1 + 1 [by 2]
4) 4 = 2 + 2 [repeating] [direct derivation]

As you can see, nowhere in this argument do I ask you to go outside and look at the two’s and the four’s and see if two two’s equal a four. I merely asked you to think about things and the truth was obvious. This was an example of a sound, deductive and a-priori argument.
Of there are also deductive a-priori arguments that are unsound. For example:
1) 5 = 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 [premise]
2) 2 = 1 + 1
3) 5 = 2 + 2. [by 2]

This argument is unsound because it’s first premise is false. But it is nevertheless a-priori and deductive. The following is an a-priori deductive argument that is invalid:
1) 4 = 1+1+1+1 [premise]
2) 2 = 1+1 [premise]
3) 4 = 2 + 1 + 1 [by 1 and 2]
4) for ax2+bx+c=0, x=(-b??b2-4ac)/(2a) [conclusion]

All of these statements are true, but as was explained above this argument, while a-priori and deductive, is invalid and consequently also unsound. It is important to remember that while deductivity and a-priori are important distinctions to remember, they only help us look at the type of argument, they do not help us to evaluate that argument.

V. Indirect Derivation

The final thing to note about the form of this argument is that it is proof by indirect derivation. That is to say it is proof by reductio ad absurdum (reducing to the absurd). It lays down some premises it takes to be self-evidently obvious, and then it assumes the negation of the thing it wants to prove. Then, using the premises and the negation, the author demonstrates a contradiction. Thus the negation is false (the original statement is thusly true).
In very recent literature we have seen some mathematicians arguing against using this medium, but for this paper we will assume that argument by indirect derivation is a valid form. With that, we have covered the form of the ontological argument, and we can tackle a piece-by-piece analysis of its structure.

VI. Premise One

1) Premise: God – who is a being that which none greater is possible – exists in the understanding. This premise draws a distinction between objects that exist in the understanding and those that exist in reality. The object UCSD Shuttle exists in reality. If I think bout it, it also exists in my understanding (that is I can conceptualize it). The object Unicorn does not exist in reality. But it does exist in the understanding (I can think about it). The premise claims that since we can think about God and conceptualize him, he must exist.
Is there an objection? Yes. One can claim that it is not possible to conceptualize a truly perfect being ? or equally that it is impossible to understand what truly perfect is. For example, take the perfect hockey player. How many goals would he score? Could he be checked? There is some weight in this objection, and it is underestimated in the opinion of the author. The author understands, however, that the reason it is underestimated is that such powerful criticism can be offered to other parts of the argument.

VII. Premise Two

2) Premise: God might have existed in reality. This premise is to say that the idea of God ? a truly perfect being by definition, is an idea of a possibly existing thing. Here we can object in the same manner that we drew above. We may also raise paradoxes. A truly perfect god would have to be omnipotent (maybe ? if not there is more to say). If he is omnipotent, can he make a rock so large he himself cannot lift it? The paradox of omnipotence (Mackie) comes into play, and we can forge a strong argument against the impossibility of God existing. But for the sake of argument, let us also grant this premise.

VIII. Premise Three

3) Premise: If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality, then it might have been greater then it is. This premise is only true if the implied and unstated premise ? that it is greater to exist in reality and the mind then it is to exist in reality alone ? is true. Is this premise true? Why should we accept this premise? Is their any reason for it at all? That’s actually a hard question to answer, and nowhere, certainly not in Anselm, is the case to accept this premise made. On the other hand, what reasons might we have for rejecting it?
The legendary philosopher Immanuel Kant offers the most powerful of these. Kant’s refutation is that existence itself is not a property. Just look at logic, where existence is a predicate acting upon properties, not a property in and of itself.
In short, the first two premises are questionable, but the third seems downright wrong. From here Anselm reasons quite validly, but here is the source of his problems. These are the so-called internal objections ? objections to the soundness of the argument based on the errors within the premises. Now we turn to the so-called External premises, arguments against the argument from outside the premise.
IX. Guanilo’s Perfect Island Objection
A contemporary monk Guanilo landed a powerful objection to Anselm with the following thought experiment. Imagine we replace all occurrences of God in this argument with the perfect island. It seems like by this arguments own reasoning, since it is more perfect (greater) to exist in the mind and in reality than it is to exist in the mind alone, the perfect island must exist. Likewise, the perfect dog must exist. Unless one wants to commit oneself to a very cumbersome metaphysical universe ? this is a really powerful objection and well demonstrates that the argument in its general form may be just a little too strong.
X. Objection from fuzziness
The so-called ‘objection from fuzziness’ calls into question the strange definitions not on the word great (where Anselm can escape possible contradictions if great is meant to be more perfect) but on the word God. What is God in Anselm’s argument? He is the most perfect being, but does that show he is omnipotent, omnibenevloent and omniscient? Even if the argument succeeded, what is the nature of the god that would have been proven to exist?

XI. Conclusion

The Ontological Argument is a fantastic achievement. It is a wonderful thought experiment and it is a valiant attempt at crafting a deductive, a-priori, indirect proof for the existence of God. But doubts about the certainty of the first two premises, and the blatant holes in the third undermine its stance ? further attacked by powerful external objections. In the view of the author this argument fails in its goal to prove the existence of God. It succeeds, however, in crafting an interesting and important stance in metaphysics and philosophy of religion that will and should be studied for the rest of organized Western philosophy.

Article name: The Ontological Argument essay, research paper, dissertation

Make Assignments Great Again

24/7 customer support: humanities/2859-the-ontological-argument.html