A Deductive Argument on the Existence of God

A deductive argument is an argument with logical reasoning: if the premise is true it means the conclusion has to be true, it is a logical consequence and logical process. Whereas an inductive argument draws conclusions from particular examples; it the premise is true the conclusion could still be wrong as the premise may provide support for the conclusion however it is not 'proof'. Inductive arguments are based on conclusion and our senses. The ontological argument is a deductive argument as it has deductive proof; the premises show it is logically necessary for God to exist. the ontological argument is also a priori as it is based on logic.

The ontological argument is an argument to prove the existence of God. Ontology is a branch of philosophy that explores the concept of existence. It comes from the Greek word 'ontos' meaning 'being'. E.g. everyone exists physically- we can be seen and heard, we exist empirically. However, emotions don't exist in the same way we exist; they exist but not physically. Emotions can be felt, but not by others- they exist in an entirely different way. According to the ontological argument, almost everything exists contingently. We are contingent beings because we depend on something else; we wouldn't exist without our parents, oxygen, food etc. Everything else in the universe exists contingently too; in other circumstances it would cease to exist. However according to religious believers, God is necessary rather than contingent. God is not a 'thing'. God is beyond our understanding: we only know him through revelation. Necessary means they rely on nothing therefore we can infer that God has always existed and always will exist. we as humans understand God in anthropomorphic terms.

The ontological argument was created by St Anselm who was an archbishop of Canterbury and a Benedictine monk. He created the argument not to convert others but to show rationality behind his own faith and the faith of others. His perspective is referred to as 'faith seeking understanding!. The argument is set out in his book proslogian and is presented in two forms: proslogian 2 and proslogion 3 and is based on his definition of God 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Order custom essay A Deductive Argument on the Existence of God with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Proslogian 2 states that God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived". A real existent being would be greater than an imaginary illusory being. Therefore, the concept of God is surpassed by and actual, existent God. It is saying that it is better God exists in reality than our head as God has to exist in order to meet our definition. For example: imagine winning the lottery, the only thing better than imagining it is if you actually won it. Proslogian 2 does not work to the negative. He bases his argument on a quotation from Psalm 14:1. Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1) For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it.

Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore, something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.

Gaunilo, a monk and contemporary of St Anselm felt it was his duty to refute Anselm's argument in his objection known as 'on behalf of the fool. Gaunilo claimed that flaws would become obvious if we went through Anselms argument again replacing God with the idea of an island. He said to imagine the best lost island, we understand it as the best that exists in our head however for it to be the best it has to exist in reality or else it would be inferior to the grottiest island on the map. 'I do not know whom I would regard as the greater fool, me for accepting it or him for supposing that he had proved the existence of this island without any kind of certainty: here he is saying that Anselm is the fool for even coming up with the argument. Anselm himself provided a reply to this he pointed out that an island is a finite, limiting thing. When one person imagines a 'perfect' island, there will always be other 'perfect' islands. The 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' is unique. Anselm believed that Gaunilo's argument was defeated by his own proposition of 'necessary existence.

Anselm's second argument proslogion 3 states that God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived". He then goes on to say contingent beings are inferior to necessary beings; because God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' he must have necessary existence; therefore, God exists necessarily. We can explain this using the equation GN> GC. God (G) is the best thing there is. Things which depend on other things for their existence (C) are inferior to those which are eternal and depend on nothing else (N): N> C. As G is the best thing, G must be N, because GN> GC. This means that a necessary God is better than a contingent as it depends on nothing.

Rene Descartes was a very influential mathematician, philosopher and scientist who reformulated the ontological argument in his work meditations. Descartes was influenced by Plato and Anselm and believed that people were born with innate ideas; there are some concepts imprinted on our minds from birth and are universally shared by all of humanity. He thought that we understand shapes and numbers from birth; he also believes we were all born with an understanding of God 'a supremely perfect being' possessing all perfections.

Descartes uses two analogies to explain this, the first being a triangle; a triangle is made up of 3 angles all adding up to 180 degrees, this is part of its essence. He then goes on to uses the analogy of a mountain; the valley is part of the essence of a mountain. Here he is showing that you cannot separate the two.

Descartes says that God possesses all perfections as he is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent. He then goes on to say that God would be unable to be perfect if he didn't exist, therefore we can infer God exists because he has all of the perfections. Because God is perfect it must mean he is unchanging as if he could change it would then mean he is not perfect as he is. He then moves on to conclude that God must have always existed and will continue to always exist which is also known as being a necessary being.

Norman Malcolm revived the ontological argument in the 20th century. He believed that existence is not predicate, therefore Descartes argument is flawed. However, Malcolm did like Anselm's second argument in Proslogion 3 as he believed it could be used to provide a successful ontological argument. He argued that in order to be God he must be necessary as if he exists at all; he exists in an eternal, necessary way. He says that it is illogical to say sometimes exists or sometimes doesn't. His argument can be summarised as if God does not exist today, he never can or will exist therefore existence must be impossible. Hence if he does exist he must exist necessarily. Therefore, we can infer that his existence is either necessary or impossible. He then says that Gods existence is not impossible therefore it must be necessary.

Immanuel Kant wrote his objection in his book 'the critique of pure reason'. Many philosophers believe that Kant's criticism is fatal as it demolishes all other arguments. Kant said that 'existence is not a predicate' as it is not a characteristic of something. A predicate of something describes what it is like; a predicate tells us something about an object that will help us to identify it in some way. Kant says that existence is not the same as predicate as it does not tell us anything about and object as when something 'exists' we are saying there is an example of something with these characteristics in real life.

If we were to apply this to the ontological argument, then when we are thinking of Anselm's 'That than which nothing greater can be conceived" and Descartes' 'supremely perfect being', we are thinking of a concept. Whether or not that concept is actualised is an issue, but not one that can be solved simply by adding 'existence' to the predicates we ascribe to the concept. We can use the predicate of a unicorn that is like a horse and has a single horn in the middle of its head, however adding 'exists' to our description won't make any difference as to whether or not the concept is actualised so that we can go and find one. I cannot simply say 'a unicorn is a horse-like creature with a horn that exists', and one will appear as an example in real life.

Therefore, when we describe the concept of God, there is no point in saying that existence is a predicate, because it does not actualise God. It does not create a God that we can use as a real life example, because existence is not predicate; it is not one of God's characteristics.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer