ASSES ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
INTRO: Outline ontological meaning
While Malcolm’s argument succeeds on solving the problems of former
ontological arguments such as the presumption of existence as a
predicate, all ontological arguments fail at proving God must necessarily
exist as its impossible for existence to be necessary.
ANSELM rst argument
Weakest
Gaunilo’s island
➢ Gaunilo points out you can use Anselm’s rst argument to prove the existence of anything.
ANSELM’s second argument
➢ Gaunilo is comparing things of a like-kind, which can always be bettered as they’re
contingent. Contingent things (island) cannot exist necessarily. God on the other hand could
Descartes
have necessary existence, Anselm created his second argument to counter Gaunilo
can solve
Minor -
AQUINAS: de nition of God = vague + unsupported
DESCARTES argument
➢ He xes the issue Aquinas presented by supporting his idea of God as “a supremely perfect
being” with his argument for Clear and Distinct ideas.
Clear and Distinct ideas = circular
Strong
➢ The cartesian circle: Descartes claims God wouldn’t allow me to perceive of something clear
and distinctly if it wasn’t true as he isn’t a deceiver. HOWEVER, Descartes claims we can be
sure of God’s existence as we have a clear and distinct idea of his existence - this is circular.
Anselm + Descartes
Signi cant issue for
KANT: existence can’t be a predicate
➢ Descartes says existence is a perfection (therefore a predicate of God) but you can’t show
existence is a necessary attribute of anything and we can’t show God necessarily exists.
MALCOLM’s argument
➢ He doesn’t argue existence is a predicate but instead simply that its the only possible form of
existence (as his argument eliminates any other options)
HUME: impossibility of a necessary being
Defeating
➢ Therefore, necessary existence crosses the fork, as it would be both a posteriori and analytic
and so should be ‘committed to the ames (cannot be knowledge). Gods existence cannot
be necessary.
All arguments fail as they rely on the false belief that existence can be necessary. Instead we must
take an empiricist standpoint and recognise deductive a priori arguments cannot tell us facts
about the universe.
fi fi
fi fi fl fi
INTRO: Outline ontological meaning
While Malcolm’s argument succeeds on solving the problems of former
ontological arguments such as the presumption of existence as a
predicate, all ontological arguments fail at proving God must necessarily
exist as its impossible for existence to be necessary.
ANSELM rst argument
Weakest
Gaunilo’s island
➢ Gaunilo points out you can use Anselm’s rst argument to prove the existence of anything.
ANSELM’s second argument
➢ Gaunilo is comparing things of a like-kind, which can always be bettered as they’re
contingent. Contingent things (island) cannot exist necessarily. God on the other hand could
Descartes
have necessary existence, Anselm created his second argument to counter Gaunilo
can solve
Minor -
AQUINAS: de nition of God = vague + unsupported
DESCARTES argument
➢ He xes the issue Aquinas presented by supporting his idea of God as “a supremely perfect
being” with his argument for Clear and Distinct ideas.
Clear and Distinct ideas = circular
Strong
➢ The cartesian circle: Descartes claims God wouldn’t allow me to perceive of something clear
and distinctly if it wasn’t true as he isn’t a deceiver. HOWEVER, Descartes claims we can be
sure of God’s existence as we have a clear and distinct idea of his existence - this is circular.
Anselm + Descartes
Signi cant issue for
KANT: existence can’t be a predicate
➢ Descartes says existence is a perfection (therefore a predicate of God) but you can’t show
existence is a necessary attribute of anything and we can’t show God necessarily exists.
MALCOLM’s argument
➢ He doesn’t argue existence is a predicate but instead simply that its the only possible form of
existence (as his argument eliminates any other options)
HUME: impossibility of a necessary being
Defeating
➢ Therefore, necessary existence crosses the fork, as it would be both a posteriori and analytic
and so should be ‘committed to the ames (cannot be knowledge). Gods existence cannot
be necessary.
All arguments fail as they rely on the false belief that existence can be necessary. Instead we must
take an empiricist standpoint and recognise deductive a priori arguments cannot tell us facts
about the universe.
fi fi
fi fi fl fi
