Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The question centers around a core tenet of the ontological argument for the existence of God, first formally proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. This argument attempts to demonstrate God’s existence through reason alone, based on the very *concept* of God as the “greatest conceivable being.” The premise is that a being which possesses all perfections, including existence, is greater than a being which possesses all perfections *except* existence. Therefore, to deny God’s existence is to contradict the very definition of God. This analysis will explore whether it is indeed self-contradictory to posit a most perfect being lacking existence, examining the philosophical underpinnings and criticisms of this claim.
Understanding the Ontological Argument
St. Anselm’s ontological argument, presented in his *Proslogion*, proceeds in two main forms. The first, presented in chapters 2-3, argues that even a fool who denies God’s existence understands what ‘God’ means – namely, ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived.’ If this being exists only in the understanding, then a greater being – one that exists both in the understanding *and* in reality – can be conceived. This contradicts the initial definition of God as the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, God must exist. The second argument, found in chapter 3, focuses on the idea that a necessary being (one that cannot not exist) is greater than a contingent being (one that could not exist). God, as the greatest conceivable being, must be a necessary being, and thus must exist.
The Core Claim: Existence as a Perfection
The crux of the argument lies in the assertion that existence is a perfection. A perfection, in this context, is a quality that makes something better. Anselm argues that a being possessing all perfections *except* existence is demonstrably less perfect than a being possessing all perfections *including* existence. To say the most perfect conceivable being lacks existence is, therefore, to say it is not truly the most perfect conceivable being, creating a logical contradiction. This is because lacking existence implies a potential for non-being, which is an imperfection.
Kant’s Objection: Existence is Not a Predicate
Immanuel Kant, in his *Critique of Pure Reason* (1781), presented a powerful objection to the ontological argument. He argued that existence is not a ‘real predicate’ – it doesn’t add anything to the *concept* of a thing. When we say something exists, we are not adding a quality to its description; we are simply affirming that the concept is instantiated in reality. Therefore, saying ‘God exists’ doesn’t make the concept of God more complete or perfect; it merely asserts that the concept has an external referent. If existence isn’t a predicate, then the argument that a being with all perfections *must* include existence collapses.
Further Criticisms and Responses
Several other criticisms have been leveled against the ontological argument. Some argue that it commits a fallacy of equivocation, shifting the meaning of ‘existence’ between a conceptual and a real sense. Others point out that we can conceive of many things that don’t exist (e.g., a perfect island), and the fact that we can conceive of them doesn’t bring them into being.
Defenders of the argument, such as Norman Malcolm, have attempted to refine it. Malcolm argued that the concept of God is unique, and that denying God’s existence is not merely a denial of a property, but a contradiction in terms, similar to denying that a triangle has three sides. However, this relies on a specific understanding of the concept of God that is not universally accepted.
Modal Logic and Contemporary Ontological Arguments
In the 20th and 21st centuries, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga have revived the ontological argument using modal logic. Plantinga’s argument focuses on the concept of ‘maximal greatness’ and the possibility of a maximally great being existing in some possible world. If it is *possible* for a maximally great being to exist, and maximal greatness entails existence in all possible worlds, then a maximally great being must exist in the actual world. This version of the argument is more complex and relies on sophisticated logical tools, but it still faces criticisms regarding the validity of its underlying assumptions.
| Argument | Key Proponent | Core Idea | Major Criticism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classical Ontological Argument | St. Anselm | God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being; therefore, God must exist. | Kant’s objection: Existence is not a predicate. |
| Modal Ontological Argument | Alvin Plantinga | If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, then it must exist in all possible worlds. | Challenges to the concept of ‘maximal greatness’ and the validity of modal logic application. |
Conclusion
The question of whether it is self-contradictory to say that the most perfect conceivable being lacks existence remains a subject of intense philosophical debate. While Anselm’s original argument is compelling on the surface, Kant’s critique and subsequent objections have cast significant doubt on its validity. Contemporary formulations using modal logic attempt to address these criticisms, but they are not without their own challenges. Ultimately, the ontological argument’s success hinges on whether one accepts the premise that existence is a perfection and whether the concept of God is uniquely defined in a way that necessitates its existence. The argument serves as a powerful illustration of the complexities of metaphysical reasoning and the limits of attempting to prove the existence of God through pure logic.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.