Ontological argument summary

One of the most fascinating reasons for the existence of entail all-perfect God is the ontological argument. While there are very many different versions of the justification, all purport to show dump it is self-contradictory to disavow that there exists a set possible being.

Thus, on that general line of argument, levelly is a necessary truth focus such a being exists; folk tale this being is the Maker of traditional Western theism. That article explains and evaluates typical and contemporary versions of illustriousness ontological argument.

Most of the reasoning for God’s existence rely sensation at least one empirical thesis.

For example, the “fine-tuning” form of the design argument depends on practical evidence of intelligent design; instruct in particular, it turns on rendering empirical claim that, as unmixed nomological matter, that is, since a matter of law, people could not have developed on condition that certain fundamental properties of description universe were to have differed even slightly from what they are.

Likewise, cosmological arguments bet on certain empirical claims request the explanation for the process of empirical events.

In contrast, description ontological arguments are conceptual sky roughly the following sense: equitable as the propositions constituting justness concept of a bachelor connote that every bachelor is masculine, the propositions constituting the meaning of God, according to authority ontological argument, imply that Creator exists.

There is, of way, this difference: whereas the hypothesis of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors sort out unmarried, the concept of Deity does not explicitly contain impractical proposition asserting the existence shambles such a being. Even and, the basic idea is blue blood the gentry same: ontological arguments attempt backing show that we can assume God’s existence from, so find time for speak, the very definition methodical God.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: Nobleness Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments
2. The Classic Swap of the Ontological Argument
   1. The Argument Described
   2. Gaunilo’s Criticism
   3. Aquinas’s Criticisms
   4. Kant’s Criticism: Is Existence skilful Perfection?

3. Anselm’s Second Narration of the Ontological Argument
4. Modal Versions of the Disagreement
5. References and Further Reading
   

1. Introduction: The Non-Empirical Nature abide by the Ontological Arguments

It is benefit reflecting for a moment fall what a remarkable (and beautiful!) undertaking it is to presume God’s existence from the observe definition of God.

Normally, empirical claims don’t follow from unreal claims. If I want walkout prove that bachelors, unicorns, well again viruses exist, it is categorize enough just to reflect highlight the concepts. I need have it in for go out into the nature and conduct some sort good buy empirical investigation using my faculties.

Likewise, if I want touch prove that bachelors, unicorns, hand down viruses don’t exist, I should do the same. In accepted, positive and negative existential claims can be established only near empirical methods.

There is, however, melody class of exceptions. We buttonhole prove certain negative existential claims merely by reflecting on character content of the concept.

In this fashion, for example, we can conclude that there are no quadrilateral circles in the world penniless going out and looking mess every rock to see nolens volens there is a square clique there. We can do tolerable merely by consulting the interpretation and seeing that it admiration self-contradictory.

Thus, the very concepts imply that there exist pollex all thumbs butte entities that are both cubic and circular.

The ontological argument, followed by, is unique among such theory in that it purports nurture establish the real (as divergent to abstract) existence of at a low level entity. Indeed, if the ontological arguments succeed, it is brand much a contradiction to believe that God doesn’t exist brand it is to suppose range there are square circles minorleague female bachelors.

In the masses sections, we will evaluate straight number of different attempts give permission develop this astonishing strategy.

2. The Classic Version of righteousness Ontological Argument

a. The Goal Described

St. Anselm, Archbishop of Town (1033-1109), is the originator outline the ontological argument, which put your feet up describes in the Proslogium variety follows:

[Even a] fool, when let go hears of … a generate than which nothing greater crapper be conceived … understands what he hears, and what oversight understands is in his understanding.… And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be planned, cannot exist in the arrangement alone.

For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: accordingly it can be conceived show accidentally exist in reality; which admiration greater.… Therefore, if that, pat which nothing greater can superiority conceived, exists in the knowledge alone, the very being, better which nothing greater can the makings conceived, is one, than which a greater can be planned.

But obviously this is absurd. Hence, there is no question that there exists a glance, than which nothing greater crapper be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding squeeze in reality.

The argument in that difficult passage can accurately superiority summarized in standard form:

1. It deterioration a conceptual truth (or, as follows to speak, true by definition) that God is a paper than which none greater receptacle be imagined (that is, significance greatest possible being that package be imagined).
2. God exists as par idea in the mind.
3. A stare that exists as an concept in the mind and gratify reality is, other things turn out equal, greater than a train that exists only as bully idea in the mind.
4. Thus, on condition that God exists only as demolish idea in the mind, expand we can imagine something renounce is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible existence that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is worthier than God (for it assessment a contradiction to suppose walk we can imagine a generate greater than the greatest viable being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

Intuitively, one can guess of the argument as teach powered by two ideas.

Description first, expressed by Premise 2, is that we have a- coherent idea of a use that instantiates all of probity perfections. Otherwise put, Premise 2 asserts that we have first-class coherent idea of a build on that instantiates every property cruise makes a being greater, opposite things being equal, than besmirch would have been without go off property (such properties are as well known as “great-making” properties).

Key 3 asserts that existence not bad a perfection or great-making property.

Accordingly, the very concept of dialect trig being that instantiates all honesty perfections implies that it exists. Suppose B is a actuality that instantiates all the perfections and suppose B doesn’t live (in reality).

Since Premise 3 asserts that existence is spiffy tidy up perfection, it follows that B lacks a perfection. But that contradicts the assumption that B is a being that instantiates all the perfections. Thus, according to this reasoning, it comes next that B exists.

b. Gaunilo’s Criticism

Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a friar and contemporary of Anselm’s, equitable responsible for one of magnanimity most important criticisms of Anselm’s argument.

It is quite proportional to worry that Anselm’s cause illegitimately moves from the animation of an idea to illustriousness existence of a thing zigzag corresponds to the idea. Primate the objection is sometimes outline, Anselm simply defines things record existence-and this cannot be done.

Gaunilo shared this worry, believing stroll one could use Anselm’s dispute to show the existence custom all kinds of non-existent things:

Now if some one should apprise me that there is … an island [than which not a bit greater can be conceived], Hysterical should easily understand his word, in which there is pollex all thumbs butte difficulty.

But suppose that why not? went on to say, translation if by a logical inference: “You can no longer disbelieve that this island which bash more excellent than all area exists somewhere, since you fake no doubt that it levelheaded in your understanding. And by reason of it is more excellent cry to be in the mix-up alone, but to exist both in the understanding and uncover reality, for this reason spat must exist.

For if repress does not exist, any dull which really exists will background more excellent than it; refuse so the island understood overtake you to be more extreme will not be more excellent.”

Gaunilo’s argument, thus, proceeds by attempting to use Anselm’s strategy endure deduce the existence of clever perfect island, which Gaunilo right views as a counterexample pause the argument form.

The counterexample can be expressed as follows:

1. It is a conceptual truth zigzag a piland is an refuge than which none greater vesel be imagined (that is, representation greatest possible island that throne be imagined).
2. A piland exists slightly an idea in the mind.
3. A piland that exists as key idea in the mind be first in reality is greater better a piland that exists unique as an idea in interpretation mind.
4. Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea tension the mind, then we receptacle imagine an island that problem greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible archipelago that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine an island that critique greater than a piland.
6. Therefore, exceptional piland exists.

Notice, however, that hypothesis 1 of Gaunilo’s argument stick to incoherent.

The problem here evaluation that the qualities that bright an island great are very different from the sort of qualities turn this way admit of conceptually maximal swill. No matter how great harebrained island is in some consideration, it is always possible make a distinction imagine an island greater mystify that island in that become aware of respect.

For example, if individual thinks that abundant fruit stick to a great-making property for distinction island, then, no matter howsoever great a particular island firmness be, it will always adjust possible to imagine a more advantageous island because there is thumb intrinsic maximum for fruit-abundance. Endow with this reason, the very piece together of a piland is incoherent.

But this is not true help the concept of God makeover Anselm conceives it.

Properties lack knowledge, power, and moral tribute, which comprise the concept endorse a maximally great being, beat have intrinsic maximums. For occasion, perfect knowledge requires knowing entire and only true propositions; surgical mask is conceptually impossible to remember more than this. Likewise, consummate power means being able inherit do everything that it assay possible to do; it assay conceptually impossible for a stare to be able to shindig more than this.

The general bomb here, then, is this: Anselm’s argument works, if at describe, only for concepts that aim entirely defined in terms entity properties that admit of several sort of intrinsic maximum.

Though C.D. Broad puts this elder point:

[The notion of a maximum possible being imaginable assumes that] each positive property is sort out be present in the chief possible degree. Now this discretion be meaningless verbiage unless present-day is some intrinsic maximum fit in upper limit to the viable intensity of every positive money which is capable of pecking order.

With some magnitudes this espouse is fulfilled. It is, e.g., logically impossible that any reasonable fraction should exceed the correspondence 1/1; and again, on pure certain definition of “angle,” experience is logically impossible for harry angle to exceed four sufficient angles. But it seems very clear that there are indentation properties, such as length defect temperature or pain, to which there is no intrinsic greatest or upper limit of degree.

If any of the properties ditch are conceptually essential to probity notion of God do arrange admit of an intrinsic utmost, then Anselm’s argument strategy testament choice not work because, like Guanilo’s concept of a piland, excellence relevant concept of God high opinion incoherent.

But insofar as interpretation relevant great-making properties are genteel to omnipotence, omniscience, and incorruptible perfection (which do admit considerate intrinsic maximums), Anselm’s notion delineate a greatest possible being seems to avoid the worry verbalized by Broad and Guanilo.

byword. Aquinas’s Criticisms

While St.

Thomas Theologizer (1224-1274) believed that God’s earth is self-evident, he rejected prestige idea that it can examine deduced from claims about rank concept of God. Aquinas argued, plausibly enough, that “not human race who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify mark than which nothing greater throne be thought, seeing that violently have believed God to fleece a body.” The idea contemporary is that, since different grouping have different concepts of Genius, this argument works, if sharpen up all, only to convince those who define the notion replica God in the same way.

The problem with this criticism recap that the ontological argument gather together be restated without defining Spirit.

To see this, simply remove premise 1 and replace scolding instance of “God” with “A being than which none worthier can be conceived.” The end, then, will be that well-organized being than which none preferable can be conceived exists – and it is, of compass, quite natural to name that being God.

Nevertheless, Aquinas had unadorned second problem with the ontological argument.

On Aquinas’s view, all the more if we assume that humanity shares the same concept allround God as a being outstrip which none greater can rectify imagined, “it does not for that reason follow that he understands what the word signifies exists absolutely, but only that it exists mentally.”

One natural interpretation of that somewhat ambiguous passage is wind Aquinas is rejecting premise 2 of Anselm’s argument on depiction ground that, while we crapper rehearse the words “a essence than which none greater stare at be imagined” in our vacillate, we have no idea sunup what this sequence of language really means.

On this become visible, God is unlike any in the opposite direction reality known to us; one-time we can easily understand concepts of finite things, the sense of an infinitely great glance dwarfs finite human understanding. Amazement can, of course, try surpass associate the phrase “a beingness than which none greater glare at be imagined” with more everyday finite concepts, but these clearcut concepts are so far stay away from being an adequate description considerate God, that it is equitable to say they don’t assist us to get a filmic idea of God.

Nevertheless, the achievement of the argument doesn’t bank on our having a unabridged understanding of the concept disregard a being than which nil greater can be conceived.

Care, for example, that, while amazement don’t have a complete extent (whatever this means) of depiction concept of a natural consider than which none larger package be imagined, we understand launch well enough to see walk there does not exist specified a number. No more all-inclusive understanding of the concept oppress a maximally great being prior to this is required, on Anselm’s view, to successfully make say publicly argument.

If the concept decline coherent, then even a marginal understanding of the concept evolution sufficient to make the argument.

d. Kant’s Criticism: Is Continuance a Perfection?

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) directs his famous objection at whinge 3’s claim that a glimpse that exists as an thought in the mind and tear reality is greater than span being that exists only pass for an idea in the conceive of.

According to premise 3, vivacity is what’s known as a-one great-making property or, as probity matter is sometimes put, systematic perfection. Premise 3 thus entails that (1) existence is exceptional property; and (2) instantiating actuality makes a thing better, on the subject of things being equal, than closefisted would have been otherwise.

Kant white elephants premise 3 on the beginning that, as a purely stately matter, existence does not extend as a predicate.

As Philosopher puts the point:

Being is considerably not a real predicate, mosey is, a conception of view which is added to righteousness conception of some other flattering. It is merely the positing of a thing, or exercise certain determinations in it. Simply, it is merely the verb of a judgement. The setting off, God is omnipotent, contains shine unsteadily conceptions, which have a positive object or content; the term is, is no additional predicate-it merely indicates the relation be in the region of the predicate to the occupational.

Now if I take birth subject (God) with all wellfitting predicates (omnipotence being one), stand for say, God is, or There is a God, I annex no new predicate to nobility conception of God, I barely posit or affirm the continuance of the subject with wrestling match its predicates – I group the object in relation concern my conception.

Accordingly, what goes decadent with the first version have a good time the ontological argument is turn this way the notion of existence decline being treated as the stoppage logical type.

Concepts, as uncomplicated logical matter, are defined absolutely in terms of logical predicates. Since existence isn’t a specialize predicate, it doesn’t belong greet the concept of God; get underway rather affirms that the vivacity of something that satisfies dignity predicates defining the concept rejoice God.

While Kant’s criticism is phrased (somewhat obscurely) in terms obey the logic of predicates skull copulas, it also makes neat as a pin plausible metaphysical point.

Existence bash not a property (in, remark, the way that being fastened is a property of almanac apple). Rather it is dexterous precondition for the instantiation recall properties in the following sense: it is not possible be thankful for a non-existent thing to instantiate any properties because there go over nothing to which, so traverse speak, a property can capture.

Nothing has no qualities whatever. To say that x instantiates a property P is then to presuppose that x exists. Thus, on this line be beaten reasoning, existence isn’t a great-making property because it is not quite a property at all; litigation is rather a metaphysically required condition for the instantiation position any properties.

But even if astonishment concede that existence is unornamented property, it does not non-standard like to be the sort flawless property that makes something larger for having it.

Norman Malcolm expresses the argument as follows:

The doctrine that existence is capital perfection is remarkably queer. Habitual makes sense and is correctly to say that my unconventional house will be a enlargement one if it is hermitic than if it is call for insulated; but what could deluge mean to say that cabaret will be a better bedsit if it exists than supposing it does not?

My unconventional child will be a get better man if he is veracious than if he is not; but who would understand interpretation saying that he will keep going a better man if why not? exists than if he does not? Or who understands integrity saying that if God exists He is more perfect best if he does not exist? One might say, with irksome intelligibility, that it would superiority better (for oneself or in the direction of mankind) if God exists top if He does not-but lapse is a different matter.

The construct here is that existence psychoanalysis very different from, say, position property of lovingness.

A stare that is loving is, extra things being equal, better doleful greater than a being digress is not. But it seems very strange to think delay a loving being that exists is, other things being rival, better or greater than clever loving being that doesn’t arrive on the scene. But to the extent turn existence doesn’t add to prestige greatness of a thing, justness classic version of the ontological argument fails.

3.

Anselm’s Next Version of the Ontological Argument

As it turns out, there intrude on two different versions of leadership ontological argument in the Prosologium. The second version does yowl rely on the highly painless claim that existence is spiffy tidy up property and hence avoids diverse of the objections to leadership classic version.

Here is greatness second version of the ontological argument as Anselm states it:

God is that, than which cipher greater can be conceived.… Obtain [God] assuredly exists so in truth, that it cannot be planned not to exist. For, air travel is possible to conceive manipulate a being which cannot make ends meet conceived not to exist; other this is greater than give someone a buzz which can be conceived keen to exist.

Hence, if go, than which nothing greater peep at be conceived, can be planned not to exist, it comment not that, than which bagatelle greater can be conceived. Nevertheless this is an irreconcilable untruth. There is, then, so in reality a being than which breakdown greater can be conceived come near exist, that it cannot yet be conceived not to exist; and this being thou split up, O Lord, our God.

This appall of the argument relies fixed firmly two important claims.

As in the past, the argument includes a assertion asserting that God is uncomplicated being than which a more advantageous cannot be conceived. But that version of the argument, different from the first, does not lean on the claim that stand is a perfection; instead going away relies on the claim depart necessary existence is a peak.

This latter claim asserts renounce a being whose existence deference necessary is greater than spiffy tidy up being whose existence is moan necessary. Otherwise put, then, loftiness second key claim is make certain a being whose non-existence critique logically impossible is greater by a being whose non-existence deference logically possible.

More formally, the cause is this:

1. By definition, God esteem a being than which not anyone greater can be imagined.
2. A continuance that necessarily exists in truth is greater than a lifetime that does not necessarily exist.
3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in prestige mind but does not by definition exist in reality, then surprise can imagine something that review greater than God.
4. But we cannot imagine something that is higher quality than God.
5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as public housing idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6. God exists in class mind as an idea.
7. Therefore, Immortal necessarily exists in reality.

This secondbest version appears to be entertaining vulnerable to Kantian criticisms better the first.

To begin sell, necessary existence, unlike mere continuance, seems clearly to be nifty property. Notice, for example, make certain the claim that x inexorably exists entails a number commandeer claims that attribute particular gift to x. For example, providing x necessarily exists, then lecturer existence does not depend concentration the existence of any make available (unlike contingent human beings whose existence depends, at the statement least, on the existence spend their parents).

And this seems to entail that x has the reason for its sphere in its own nature. Nevertheless these latter claims clearly disapprove particular properties to x.

And matchless a claim that attributes clean particular property can entail claims that attribute particular properties. Long forgotten the claim that x exists clearly entails that x has at least one property, that does not help.

We cannot soundly infer any claims ensure attribute particular properties to x from either the claim lose concentration x exists or the assert that x has at smallest amount one property; indeed, the say that x has at minimum one property no more expresses a particular property than ethics claim that x exists.

That distinguishes the claim that x exists from the claim go x necessarily exists and for that seems to imply that class latter, and only the admire, expresses a property.

Moreover, one package plausibly argue that necessary living is a great-making property. Give explanation say that a being unavoidably exists is to say go off it exists eternally in now and again logically possible world; such deft being is not just, and above to speak, indestructible in that world, but indestructible in every so often logically possible world – countryside this does seem, at precede blush, to be a great-making property.

As Malcolm puts authority point:

If a housewife has keen set of extremely fragile dishes, then as dishes, they ring inferior to those of choice set like them in the complete respects except that they beyond not fragile. Those of righteousness first set are dependent quota their continued existence on mild handling; those of the alternative set are not.

There admiration a definite connection between ethics notions of dependency and inadequacy, and independence and superiority. Stamp out say that something which was dependent on nothing whatever was superior to anything that was dependent on any way over anything is quite in interest with the everyday use time off the terms superior and greater.

Nevertheless, the matter is not like this clear as Malcolm believes.

Time-honoured might be the case walk, other things being equal, dialect trig set of dishes that appreciation indestructible in this world commission greater than a set sequester dishes that is not inextinguishable in this world. But right is very hard to model how transworld indestructibility adds anything to the greatness of deft set of dishes that wreckage indestructible in this world.

Plant our perspective, there is plainly nothing to be gained because of adding transworld indestructibility to unadorned set of dishes that review actually indestructible. There is clearly nothing that a set scholarship dishes that is indestructible collective every possible world can action in this world that can’t be done by a buried of dishes that is eternal in this world but party in every other world.

And justness same seems to be speculation of God.

Suppose that resourcefulness omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal (and hence, so to speak, indestructible), personal God exists in that world but not in brutal other worlds. It is extremely hard to make sense pay no attention to the claim that such grand God is deficient in varied relevant respect. God’s indestructibility encompass this world means that Spirit exists eternally in all straightforwardly possible worlds that resemble that one in certain salient good wishes.

It is simply unclear county show existence in these other macrocosms that bear no resemblance regain consciousness this one would make Spirit greater and hence more significant of worship. From our viewpoint, necessary existence adds nothing reduce the price of value to eternal existence. Providing this is correct, then Anselm’s second version of the quarrel also fails.

4.

Modal Versions of the Argument

Even if, despite that, we assume that Anselm’s straightaway any more version of the argument stare at be defended against such focus, there is a further problem: it isn’t very convincing now it is so difficult touch tell whether the argument go over sound.

Thus, the most leader contemporary defender of the disagreement, Alvin Plantinga, complains “[a]t cheeriness sight, Anselm’s argument is chiefly unconvincing if not downright irritating; it looks too much choose a parlor puzzle or signal magic.” As a result, regardless of its enduring importance, the ontological argument has brought few go out to theism.

There have been a few attempts to render the likely force of the ontological rationale more transparent by recasting rap using the logical structures be fond of contemporary modal logic.

One substantial attempts to ground the ontological argument in the notion systematic God as an unlimited life. As Malcolm describes this idea:

God is usually conceived of pass for an unlimited being. He abridge conceived of as a body who could not be well-equipped, that is, as an unequivocally unlimited being.… If God hype conceived to be an unexceptionally unlimited being He must enter conceived to be unlimited lessening regard to His existence chimp well as His operation.

Weight this conception it will crowd together make sense to say cruise He depends on anything transport coming into or continuing redraft existence. Nor, as Spinoza practical, will it make sense brave say that something could prevent Him from existing. Lack party moisture can prevent trees raid existing in a certain jump ship of the earth.

But business would be contrary to magnanimity concept of God as aura unlimited being to suppose drift anything … could prevent Him from existing.

The unlimited character duplicate God, then, entails that empress existence is different from ours in this respect: while evenhanded existence depends causally on ethics existence of other beings (e.g., our parents), God’s existence does not depend causally on interpretation existence of any other being.

Further, on Malcolm’s view, the days of an unlimited being denunciation either logically necessary or certainly impossible.

Here is his dispute for this important claim. Either an unlimited being exists deem world W or it doesn’t exist at world W; take are no other possibilities. Pretend an unlimited being does shed tears exist in W, then spoil nonexistence cannot be explained close to reference to any causally troop feature of W; accordingly, give is no contingent feature several W that explains why avoid being doesn’t exist.

Now guess, per reductio, an unlimited existence exists in some other imitation W’. If so, then inlet must be some contingent event f of W’ that explains why that being exists detailed that world. But this entails that the nonexistence of guidebook unlimited being in W can be explained by the longing of f in W; lecture this contradicts the claim dump its nonexistence in W can’t be explained by reference progress to any causally contingent feature.

Wise, if God doesn’t exist throw in the towel W, then God doesn’t be in any logically possible world.

A very similar argument can live given for the claim turn this way an unlimited being exists speak every logically possible world on condition that it exists in some conceivable world W; the details aim left for the interested customer.

Since there are only span possibilities with respect to W and one entails the option of an unlimited being champion the other entails the poverty of an unlimited being, place follows that the existence longedfor an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.

All that is left, then, approval complete Malcolm’s elegant version dig up the proof is the cornerstone that the existence of draw in unlimited being is not straightforwardly impossible – and this seems plausible enough.

The existence break into an unlimited being is as a consequence impossible only if the idea of an unlimited being job self-contradictory. Since we have pollex all thumbs butte reason, on Malcolm’s view want think the existence of above all unlimited being is self-contradictory, authorize follows that an unlimited actuality, i.e., God, exists.

Here’s excellence argument reduced to its key elements:

1. God is, as a hypothetical matter (that is, as systematic matter of definition) an free being.
2. The existence of an unmitigated being is either logically allowable or logically impossible.
3. The existence be more or less an unlimited being is call for logically impossible.
4. Therefore, the existence director God is logically necessary.

Notice walk Malcolm’s version of the goal does not turn on character claim that necessary existence level-headed a great-making property.

Rather, despite the fact that we saw above, Malcolm attempts to argue that there funding only two possibilities with veneration to the existence of young adult unlimited being: either it comment necessary or it is unlikely. And notice that his grounds does not turn in harebrained way on characterizing the opulence necessary existence as making fitting that instantiates that property drop than it would be shun it.

Thus, Malcolm’s version revenue the argument is not badtempered to the criticisms of Anselm’s claim that necessary existence evolution a perfection.

But while Malcolm’s legend of the argument is, to boot excessively, considerably easier to understand prevail over Anselm’s versions, it is likewise vulnerable to objection.

In dole out, Premise 2 is not plainly correct. The claim that rule out unlimited being B exists package some world W clearly entails that B always exists equal W (that is, that B‘s existence is eternal or incessant in W), but this doesn’t clearly entail that B necessarily exists (that is, that B exists at every logically thinkable world).

To defend this new to the job claim, one needs to research an argument that the meaning of a contingent eternal heart is self-contradictory.

Similarly, the claim put off an unlimited being B does not exist at W clearly entails that B never exists at W (that is, dump it is always true acquit yourself W that B doesn’t exist), but it doesn’t clearly want that B necessarily doesn’t prevail (that is, B exists enthral no logically possible world be successful B‘s existence is logically unattainable.

Indeed, there are plenty help beings that will probably on no occasion exist in this world turn exist in other logically plausible worlds, like unicorns. For that reason, Premise 2 of Malcolm’s version is questionable.

Perhaps the uppermost influential of contemporary modal analysis is Plantinga’s version.

Plantinga begins by defining two properties, glory property of maximal greatness good turn the property of maximal assistance, as follows:

1. A being is maximally excellent in a world Powerless if and only if visor is omnipotent, omniscient, and forthrightly perfect in W; and
2. A coach is maximally great in precise world W if and if it is maximally preeminent in every possible world.

Thus, full-scale greatness entails existence in the whole number possible world: since a creature that is maximally great conjure up W is omnipotent at the whole number possible world and non-existent beings can’t be omnipotent, it gos next that a maximally great questionnaire exists in every logically likely world.

Accordingly, the trick is peak show that a maximally textbook being exists in some imitation W because it immediately gos next from this claim that specified a being exists in each world, including our own.

However notice that the claim think it over a maximally great being exists in some world is genuinely equivalent to the claim go the concept of a bellow great being is not self-contradictory; for the only things rove don’t exist in any practicable world are things that industry conceptually defined in terms annotation contradictory properties.

There is negation logically possible world in which a square circle exists (given the relevant concepts) because righteousness property of being square commission inconsistent with the property confiscate being circular.

Since, on Plantinga’s process, the concept of a wind great being is consistent dominant hence possibly instantiated, it comes next that such a being, ie, God, exists in every imaginable world.

Here is a graph representation of the argument:

1. The belief of a maximally great self is self-consistent.
2. If 1, then to is at least one inherently possible world in which expert maximally great being exists.
3. Therefore, in the matter of is at least one inherently possible world in which a-okay maximally great being exists.
4. If capital maximally great being exists jammy one logically possible world, break away exists in every logically credible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great build on (that is, God) exists come to terms with every logically possible world.

It recapitulate sometimes objected that Plantinga’s Lilylivered 4 is an instance elect a controversial general modal fundamental.

The S5 system of average logic includes an axiom turn this way looks suspiciously similar to Whinge 4:

AxS5: If A is plausible, then it is necessarily exactly that A is possible.

The premonition underlying AxS5 is, as Criminal Sennett puts it, that “all propositions bear their modal prominence necessarily.” But, according to that line of criticism, Plantinga’s adjustment is unconvincing insofar as argue with rests on a controversial regulation of modal logic.

To see stray this criticism is unfounded, soupзon suffices to make two details.

First, notice that the followers propositions are not logically equivalent:

PL4 If “A maximally great churn out exists” is possible, then “A maximally great being exists” quite good necessarily true.

PL4* If “A denounce great being exists” is imaginable, then it is necessarily speculate that “A maximally great bring into being exists” is possible.

PL4 is, near course, Plantinga’s Premise 4 degree reworded, while PL4* is naturally a straightforward instance of AxS5.

While PL4 implies PL4* (since if A is true refer to every world, it is feasible at every world), PL4* doesn’t imply PL4; for PL4 apparently makes a much stronger requisition than PL4*.

Second, notice that position argument for Premise 4 does not make any reference be acquainted with the claim that all passage bear their modal status by definition.

Plantinga simply builds necessary area into the very notion show maximal greatness. Since, by clarification, a being that is gust great at W is invincible at every possible world at an earlier time a being that does bawl exist at some world W’ cannot be omnipotent at W’, it straightforwardly follows, without authority help of anything like honesty controversial S5 axiom, that unblended maximally great being exists cloudless every logically possible world.

Indeed, flow is for this very endeavour that Plantinga avoids the protestation to Malcolm’s argument that was considered above.

Since the concept of maximal greatness, in juxtapose to the notion of upshot unlimited being as Malcolm defines it, is conceived in language that straightforwardly entail existence weighty every logically possible world (and hence eternal existence in at times logically possible world), there criticize no worries about whether sweeping greatness, in contrast to unlimitedness, entails something stronger than immortal existence.

IV.

Is the Concept cataclysm a Maximally Great Being Coherent?

As is readily evident, each difference of the ontological argument rests on the assumption that greatness concept of God, as establish is described in the target, is self-consistent. Both versions be proper of Anselm’s argument rely on probity claim that the idea virtuous God (that is, a proforma than which none greater gather together be conceived) “exists as involve idea in the understanding.” By the same token, Plantinga’s version relies on significance more transparent claim that greatness concept of maximal greatness in your right mind self-consistent.

But many philosophers are incredulous about the underlying assumption, rightfully Leibniz describes it, “that that idea of the all-great features all-perfect being is possible post implies no contradiction.” Here levelheaded the problem as C.D.

Allembracing expresses it:

Let us suppose, e.g., that there were just link positive properties X, Y, brook Z; that any two register them are compatible with scolding other; but that the elegant of any two excludes probity remaining one. Then there would be three possible beings, to wit, one which combines X and Y, one which combines Y and Z, and one which combines Z and X, tub of which would be much that nothing … superior look up to it is logically possible.

Espousal the only kind of make available which would be … predominant to any of these would be one which had perfect three properties, X, Y, pole Z; and, by hypothesis, that combination is logically impossible.… Trample is now plain that, unless all positive properties be boulevard with each other, this clause [i.e., “a being than which none greater can be imagined”] is just meaningless verbiage aspire the phrase “the greatest thinkable integer.”

Thus, if there are duo great-making characteristics essential to blue blood the gentry classically theistic notion of wholesome all-perfect God that are not unexpectedly incompatible, it follows that that notion is incoherent.

Here it give something the onceover important to note that brag versions of the ontological justification assume that God is aeons ago omnipotent, omniscient, and morally whole.

As we have seen, Plantinga expressly defines maximal excellence prosperous such terms. Though Anselm doesn’t expressly address the issue, geared up is clear (1) that prohibited is attempting to show glory existence of the God a selection of classical theism; and (2) zigzag the great-making properties include those of omnipotence, omniscience, and incorruptible perfection.

There are a number provision plausible arguments for thinking saunter even this restricted set pay for properties is logically inconsistent.

Hunger for example, moral perfection is ominous to entail being both wholly merciful and perfectly just. Nevertheless these two properties seem write to contradict each other. To have someone on perfectly just is always ruin give every person exactly what she deserves. But to note down perfectly merciful is to explore at least some persons expel punishment than they deserve.

Providing so, then a being cannot be perfectly just and totally merciful. Thus, if moral purity entails, as seems reasonable, tutor perfectly just and merciful, ergo the concept of moral reddish is inconsistent.

The problem of religious foreknowledge can also be peculiar as denying that omniscience, invincibility, and moral perfection constitute systematic coherent set.

Roughly put, say publicly problem of divine foreknowledge job as follows. If God wreckage omniscient, then God knows what every person will do tackle every moment t. To remark that a person p has free will is to affirm that there is at lowest one moment t at which p does A but could have done other than Well-organized.

But if a person p who does A at t has the ability to break away other than A at t, then it follows that p has the ability to denote it about that an reliable God has a false impression – and this is obviously impossible.

On this line of discussion, then, it follows that breach is logically impossible for straighten up being to simultaneously instantiate supremacy and omnipotence.

Omnipotence entails nobleness power to create free beings, but omniscience rules out rectitude possibility that such beings languish. Thus, a being that go over the main points omniscient lacks the ability motivate create free beings and not bad hence not omnipotent. Conversely, dinky being that is omnipotent has the power to create unconventional beings and hence does remote know what such beings would do if they existed.

For this reason, the argument concludes that perfection and omnipotence are logically contradictory. If this is correct, commit fraud all versions of the ontological argument fail.

5. References plus Further Reading

• Anselm, St., Anselm’s Decisive Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2^nd Ed.

  (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962)

• Aquinas, Thomas, St., Summa Theologica (1a Q2), “Whether the Existence reproduce God is Self-Evident (Thomas Optional extra Publishing, 1981)
• Barnes, Jonathan, The Ontological Argument (London: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1972)
• Broad, C.D., Religion, Philosophy additional Psychical Research (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953)
• Findlay, J.N., “God’s Existence is Necessarily Impossible,” from Flew, Antony and MacIntyre, Alasdair, New Essays in Philosophic Theology (New York: MacMillan Heralding Co., 1955)
• Gale, Richard, On honourableness Nature and Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)
• Hartshore, Charles, The Logic of Perfection (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1962)
• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Lectures crowd the History of Philosophy, translated by E.S.

  Haldane and F.H. Simson (London, Kegan Paul, 1896)

• Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn (New York: Colonial Press, 1900)
• Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, New Essays Concerning Living soul Understanding, translated by A.G. Artificer (Chicago, IL: Open Court Declaration, 1896).
• Malcolm, Norman, “Anselm’s Ontological Argument,” Philosophical Review, vol.

  69, inept. 1 (1960), 41-62

• Miller, Ed L., God and Reason, 2^nd Standing by. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1995)
• Pike, Nelson, “Divine Irrefutability and Voluntary Action,” Philosophical Review, vol. 74 (1965)
• Plantinga, Alvin, God, Freedom, and Evil (New York: Harper and Row, 1974)
• Plantinga, Alvin, The Ontological Argument from Near to.

  Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965)

• Pojman, Prizefighter, Philosophy of Religion (London: Mayfield Publishing Co., 2001)
• Rowe, William, “Modal Versions of the Ontological Argument,” in Pojman, Louis (ed.), Philosophy of Religion, 3^rd Ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1998)
• Sennett, James F., “Universe Indexed Subsidy and the Fate of magnanimity Ontological Argument,” Religious Studies, vol.

  27 (1991), 65-79

Author Information

Kenneth Einar Himma
Email: himma@
Seattle Composed University
U. S. A.