'Can God’s existence be proved ontologically?’ (30)
An ontological argument is an a priori argument, the
Ontological Argument tries to prove the existence of God by
establishing the necessity of God’s existence through an
explanation of the concept of existence or necessary being.
There are those who would argue that the ontological argument
can certainly prove belief in God, as Anselm offers an a priori
deductive argument based on the logical impossibility of a
contradiction, thus proving God's existence from his definition
as “that which nothing greater can be conceived”
A priori deductive argument based on reason - moves from the
premise of God's existing nature to explanation, working off
reasoned logic which claims a contradiction is impossible.
This is shown in the quote “The fool says in his heart ‘There is
no God’“The fool contradicts himself, as God, by very definition,
is “something which nothing greater can be thought” An atheist
understands this as much as a theist. Due to the fact that God
can be perceived in the mind by the ‘fool’, yet reality is much
greater than thought, God must exist in reality, else he would
not fit with his definition as that which nothing greater can be
conceived, or TWNGCBC, the fool says what he says because
he has not understood his thought to a high enough degree.
On the other hand, Gainilo poses an argument ‘On behalf of the
fool’ possible to construct an argument with exactly the same
internal logic that purports to prove the existence of a perfect
island: one could imagine a perfect island thus it must exist as
reality is more perfect than imagination anything we imagine
as perfect has to exist, so therefore, one could argue that God
cannot be proven ontologically.
, However, Gaunilo’s criticism is flawed, as perfect islands are
not definable in the way God is. Platinga explained that a
perfect island is not comparable to God. God is different and
not contingent. Unlike an island, God is a necessary being,
therefore demonstrating that God can still be justified
ontologically.
God however is a subjective concept and cannot be defended
against in utilising terms like necessary; TWNGCBC is not the
only definition of God - the ancient Greeks considered God to
be the world, many religions are polytheistic. Equally others
may argue that the argument justifies belief in God as it
highlights God as a necessary being, with existence being a
defining predicate.
Descartes, explains existence is a predicate of perfection like
three sides is a predicate of a triangle. God, a, “supremely
perfect being” must exist, as existence is fundamental to his
nature. Furthermore, Necessary beings are greater than
contingent beings thus God must be necessary, as if he were
contingent he would not be the greatest conceivable being. If
he is necessary then he cannot not exist. The character of
God's existence has a special truth which is not available to any
other being. Therefore, according to religious believers, God
must exist as otherwise he would not be the greatest
conceivable being, so therefore, one could argue that God
could be argued ontologically. “Anything else does not exist so
truly and therefore has less being.”
Kant was notorious for using merely circular logic which cannot
be falsified “I could say that if I accepted God existed, then he
would necessarily exist, but I do not believe in him or his
An ontological argument is an a priori argument, the
Ontological Argument tries to prove the existence of God by
establishing the necessity of God’s existence through an
explanation of the concept of existence or necessary being.
There are those who would argue that the ontological argument
can certainly prove belief in God, as Anselm offers an a priori
deductive argument based on the logical impossibility of a
contradiction, thus proving God's existence from his definition
as “that which nothing greater can be conceived”
A priori deductive argument based on reason - moves from the
premise of God's existing nature to explanation, working off
reasoned logic which claims a contradiction is impossible.
This is shown in the quote “The fool says in his heart ‘There is
no God’“The fool contradicts himself, as God, by very definition,
is “something which nothing greater can be thought” An atheist
understands this as much as a theist. Due to the fact that God
can be perceived in the mind by the ‘fool’, yet reality is much
greater than thought, God must exist in reality, else he would
not fit with his definition as that which nothing greater can be
conceived, or TWNGCBC, the fool says what he says because
he has not understood his thought to a high enough degree.
On the other hand, Gainilo poses an argument ‘On behalf of the
fool’ possible to construct an argument with exactly the same
internal logic that purports to prove the existence of a perfect
island: one could imagine a perfect island thus it must exist as
reality is more perfect than imagination anything we imagine
as perfect has to exist, so therefore, one could argue that God
cannot be proven ontologically.
, However, Gaunilo’s criticism is flawed, as perfect islands are
not definable in the way God is. Platinga explained that a
perfect island is not comparable to God. God is different and
not contingent. Unlike an island, God is a necessary being,
therefore demonstrating that God can still be justified
ontologically.
God however is a subjective concept and cannot be defended
against in utilising terms like necessary; TWNGCBC is not the
only definition of God - the ancient Greeks considered God to
be the world, many religions are polytheistic. Equally others
may argue that the argument justifies belief in God as it
highlights God as a necessary being, with existence being a
defining predicate.
Descartes, explains existence is a predicate of perfection like
three sides is a predicate of a triangle. God, a, “supremely
perfect being” must exist, as existence is fundamental to his
nature. Furthermore, Necessary beings are greater than
contingent beings thus God must be necessary, as if he were
contingent he would not be the greatest conceivable being. If
he is necessary then he cannot not exist. The character of
God's existence has a special truth which is not available to any
other being. Therefore, according to religious believers, God
must exist as otherwise he would not be the greatest
conceivable being, so therefore, one could argue that God
could be argued ontologically. “Anything else does not exist so
truly and therefore has less being.”
Kant was notorious for using merely circular logic which cannot
be falsified “I could say that if I accepted God existed, then he
would necessarily exist, but I do not believe in him or his
