Definitions
Ontological: From the Greek "ontos" meaning being. Relating to existence or being.
A priori: Knowledge that comes from reason alone, without needing experience.
Analytic: A statement that is true by definition.
Necessary existence: Existence that cannot not exist.
The Argument
The ontological argument tries to prove God exists using pure logic and the definition of God. It says:
- God is defined as the greatest possible being
- A being that exists is greater than one that doesn't exist
- Therefore, God must exist
This argument doesn't rely on evidence or observation. It claims to prove God's existence through pure logical reasoning.
Anselm's Version
Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived."
If we can conceive of God existing, then God must exist, because:
- A God that exists is greater than a God that doesn't exist
- If God didn't exist, we could conceive of something greater
- But God is the greatest conceivable being
- Therefore, God must exist
Why is this argument appealing?
It's elegant and simple. It claims to prove God's existence without needing any evidence or experience. It's purely logical.
Problems with the Argument
Kant argued that existence is not a property that makes something "greater." Saying something exists doesn't add to its qualities.
What does this mean?
When we say a unicorn is "white, magical, and exists," the word "exists" doesn't add to our concept of the unicorn. It just tells us that the concept is instantiated in reality.
Gaunilo used the example of a perfect island. If we can conceive of the most perfect island, does that mean it must exist?
How does this refute the argument?
If the ontological argument works, then we could prove the existence of anything by defining it as "the most perfect X." This shows the argument is flawed.
The argument assumes what it's trying to prove. It defines God in a way that includes existence.
What is begging the question?
Begging the question means assuming your conclusion in your premises. The argument assumes God exists by defining God as the greatest being, then "proves" God exists.
Conclusion
The ontological argument is clever but flawed. It tries to prove God's existence through pure logic, but most philosophers think it fails because it assumes what it's trying to prove.
While the argument is intellectually interesting, it doesn't successfully prove God's existence. It's more of a thought experiment than a solid proof.