Objections to the Ontological Argument
A grade – you will have explained at least three objections and the
responses to the objections
B grade – you will have explained some of the objections and included at
least 1 response to an objection
C grade – you will have explained some of the objections
Gaunilo objections
a) Gaunilo accuses Anselm of defining God into existence where he
has no right to do so. Just because something exists in the
imagination does not mean we can claim that it must exist in
reality. Response – we already define other things into existence
(mathematical concepts) and these help us to understand the
Universe better – why can’t we do this with God? Furthermore,
painters do exactly this – they see something in the imagination
and then bring it into reality.
b) Gaunilo uses a reduction ad absurdum argument (an argument that
tries to show the claim being made is absurd) to show why
Anselm’s argument does not work. He argues that he can imagine a
perfect island in the same way Anselm can imagine a perfect being.
If Anselm’s Being must exist in reality then so must Gaunilo’s
island. This is obviously an absurd claim. Response – Islands can
come into existence and go out of existence, God can’t. The Perfect
Being must exist by definition in the same way that a triangle does
(Descartes).
c) Gaunilo argues that even if God is the perfect Being, all the
Ontological Argument does is to claim He exists – it tells us
nothing about the type of God we have. Response – it doesn’t try
to as the argument claims that God necessarily exists.
Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas did not agree with Anselm. The claim that God was the greatest
conceivable being is just too vague as everyone has a different conception
of what God is. If we all think of God in a different way then the concept
of God will not be universal. Response – this does not mean that the
general notion of God is destroyed – just because people may have
slightly different concepts of God doesn’t mean we can’t all imagine God
as the Supreme Being.
David Hume
Hume thought that the claim made by Anselm was weak as it needs no
supporting evidence to justify the claims it makes. Hume argued that if
we are to accept something as true then it must be a synthetic
proposition – it must be capable of being proved true or false. The
statement ‘God exists’ cannot be a synthetic proposition and therefore it
is meaningless. Response – Anselm is putting forward an a priori
argument and these arguments are deemed to be true without supporting
evidence!
Immanuel Kant
Existence cannot be seen as a predicate. A predicate is something that
tells us what the subject is like i.e. the cat is black. The predicate (black)
tells us something about the subject (the cat) – namely what colour it is.
Kant argued that existence cannot be seen as a predicate as it tells us
nothing about the subject. So, the statement ‘God exists’ tells us nothing
about God and so there is no difference between the perfect being of the
imagination and a perfect being who exists in reality. To say that God
exists adds nothing to the idea of God. Response – the argument does not
set out to show what God is like – it sets out to show that God must exist!
Blaise Pascal – Pascal’s Wager
Pascal thought Anselm was presenting a false dilemma – either God
definitely exists or God definitely doesn’t exist. Pascal thought that there
were convincing arguments for and against the existence of God.
However, Pascal argued that it is better to believe in God than not to
believe it God as the odds are better.
 If we believe in God and God does exist then we will be rewarded
when we die
 If we believe in God and God does not exist then nothing will
happen when we die
 If we do not believe in God and God exists then we will be
punished when we die
 If we do not believe in God and God does not exist then nothing
will happen when we die