The Ontological Argument: Modern Versions

Question 1

Norman Malcom: proof

Answer 1

P1: if god doesn’t exist now, he will never existP2: if god did exist, he has existed forever → it else he would not be necP3: therefore, gods existence must be necessaryP4: god is therefore impossible or necessaryP5: that God can only be impossible if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or logically absurd in some way.P6: Assuming that this is not so (god being self-contradictory or logically absurd) then it follows that God necessarily exists

Question 2

Normal Malcom’s reasons to Findlay

Answer 2

Anselm was not just playing with words and definitions with his argument, he had a religious context.Malcolm argues that Anselm was trying to show that God exists in the greatest conceivable manner as the ordinary, contingent way is defective.Necessary existence, by definition, excludes the possibility of non-existence, for God, again by definition, cannot be a limited being nor something that happened to come into existence by chance.So, God cannot be limited and nor can he be in any way contingent or less than perfect, for this is not possible with a necessary being.

Question 3

Norman Malcom’s response to Kant

Answer 3

If you remove necessary existence then you end up with a lesser than perfect being. For if it’s existence can be denied without contradiction, then it must depend on something else for its existence and thus it is inferior. And we end up with no God.For there to be a god, it must be unlimited and have necessity that includes existence → if we remove existence it depend on something else and is not god

Question 4

Norman Malcom: critique by John Hick

Answer 4

says NM uses de dicto and de dre necessary in one argument which you cant do

Question 5

Norman Malcom: critique by Russel

Answer 5

Rephrases the argument to show how ridiculous it is: Rephrases the argument: “The most perfect Being has all perfections; existence is a perfection; therefore the most perfect Being exists.”Rephrases it to: “There is one and only one entity x which is most perfect; that one has all perfections.”

Question 6

Alvin Plantinga: model logic

Answer 6

If it is necessary for the possibility of P, then we end up with the possibility of P. To win game, must get a gem. So if you play the game, to even must exist. But you don’t have to play the gameIf there is the possibility of a necessary P, then there has to be a necessary P. For if something necessary is possible, then it has to be.

Question 7

Alvin Plantinga: ontological argument

Answer 7

P1: you cannot deny that there could be parallel worldsP2: there is a possible world with being of maximum greatness, this being has the attribute of existing in all possible worldsP3: because there is a possibility for necessary being in one world, it must exist in all worlds as it is of maximum greatness

Question 8

Alvin Plantinga: critiques

Answer 8

only shows its possible, not actualLangue does not create realityThere could be a being of maximum greatness, there could also be as being of maximum evil