A Critical Analysis of the Ontological Argument in Philosophy
This work has been verified by our teacher: 23.02.2026 at 11:54
Homework type: Analysis
Added: 20.02.2026 at 7:36
Summary:
Explore a critical analysis of the ontological argument in philosophy to understand its foundations, key critiques, and impact on A Level UK philosophy studies.
Notes on the Ontological Argument: A Critical Examination
---I. Introduction
Among the most intriguing and challenging arguments for the existence of God commonly encountered within the United Kingdom’s A Level and IB philosophy syllabi is the ontological argument. Originating with St Anselm in the eleventh century and later developed by René Descartes, it remains a focal point of discussion, not merely for its historical impact but also for the enduring debates it inspires surrounding the nature of philosophical reasoning, language, and reality itself. Whereas many arguments for God’s existence draw upon evidence from the world — the so-called ‘a posteriori’ arguments — the ontological argument is distinctive in that it proceeds solely by means of reason, from the very idea of God, making it an ‘a priori’ proof.This essay aims to unravel the core features of the ontological argument, subject its premises and reasoning to a thorough critical analysis, and assess its broader philosophical influence. By examining major objections raised by leading thinkers, from Thomas Aquinas to David Hume and Immanuel Kant, we shall consider not only the strengths and limitations of the argument but also how it has shaped the discourse on faith, reason, and the nature of knowledge. In closing, the essay will reflect on the ways continued engagement with the ontological argument sustains critical thinking within philosophy and beyond.
---
II. The Ontological Argument: Foundations and Formulations
The term ‘ontological’ itself relates to the philosophical study of being (ontology). The ontological argument seeks to demonstrate, by conceptual analysis alone, that God must exist; it does not appeal to empirical observation or evidence, but rather to logical necessity.Anselm of Canterbury, Archbishop and a central figure in the medieval English church, formulates the argument in his *Proslogion*. He proposes that God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. According to Anselm, even the ‘fool’ who denies the existence of God must have some conception of such a being in his understanding. Anselm then contends that a God who exists both in our understanding and in reality is greater than one who exists only as an idea. As a result, the very concept of God necessitates actual existence; for otherwise, God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and this is a contradiction. In this way, Anselm crafts a reductio ad absurdum — if it is possible to conceive of God at all, He must exist.
Several centuries later, Descartes restates the argument, suggesting that existence itself is one of God’s essential ‘perfections’. As triangles necessarily have three sides, so, for Descartes, God, being supremely perfect, must by definition possess existence. The argument stands as an a priori claim: independent of experience, it purports that God’s existence is deducible by pure reason.
Underpinning these formulations are several contentious assumptions. Primarily, they rest upon the power of definitions and the capacity of the human mind to reliably access the essence of reality by thought alone. Further, they presume that ‘existence’ functions as a property or predicate, much as other qualities (such as omniscience or benevolence) might do.
---
III. Critical Examination of Key Concepts: Defining God and the Role of Existence
A major challenge for the ontological argument is whether the human mind can truly define, or even grasp, the concept of God as the greatest conceivable being. In ordinary language, definitions may denote how we use words (‘nominal definitions’) but do not necessarily guarantee corresponding entities in reality (‘real definitions’). For instance, ‘unicorn’ may be defined as ‘a horse with a single horn’; yet such a definition tells us nothing about the actual existence of unicorns.This raises the broader issue: does Anselm's or Descartes’ definition capture the reality of God, or merely construct a concept within language? If the latter, the argument risks becoming empty — robust in wordplay yet vacuous regarding reality.
Another fundamental question is whether ‘existence’ can be legitimately counted as a predicate or attribute, like colour or size. In ordinary usage, to say that something ‘exists’ is not to attribute a further property, but rather to confirm the presence of a subject corresponding to our concept. For example, imagining a collection of coins, to say that ‘gold coins exist’ is to affirm their presence, not to ascribe to them any special feature.
This leads to the philosophical distinction between analytic propositions (statements true by virtue of the meanings of their terms, such as ‘all bachelors are unmarried’) and synthetic propositions (those whose truth depends on how the world is, such as ‘the book is on the table’). If the ontological argument is analytic, it may only assert that ‘if God exists, then He exists necessarily’ — not that God exists outside thought.
Thus, the transition from a definition or idea to real existence is the crux of the contention. Without empirical evidence, is it logical to insist the leap from mental concept to reality is ever justified?
---
IV. Major Philosophical Objections to the Ontological Argument
The ontological argument has faced robust critique from theologians and philosophers, both within and outside the British tradition.Aquinas, perhaps the greatest thinker of medieval Christendom and a prominent figure within Catholic thought (with significant influence in English education), denies that God’s existence can be known a priori. He argues that God’s essence, by definition, transcends human comprehension; no concept can fully encapsulate the divine. Moreover, Aquinas maintains that existence must be shown through evidence in the world, not by thought alone — a stance underpinning the ‘cosmological’ and ‘teleological’ (design) arguments, both of which feature prominently in UK syllabi.
Advocates of empiricism, notably the Scottish philosopher David Hume, subject the ontological argument to further scrutiny. Hume is sceptical about claims established by reason alone, without input from the senses. He contends that existence is not a property that adds anything to our concept of an object; rather, it is the mind’s recognition of entities that are found in experience. Hume’s famous dictum that “nothing is ever demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction” is telling: denial of God does not entail contradiction, so God’s existence cannot be proven by logic alone.
The German philosopher Kant advances a more technical critique, influential in both philosophy and theology. He insists that existence is not a real predicate; it does not enhance or modify a concept. One can fully describe a hypothetical hundred pounds in great detail, but the description is identical whether or not those pounds exist. Thus, claiming ‘God exists’ is not the same as saying ‘God is supremely good’; existence changes nothing in the content of the concept. Kant illustrates his point through geometrical analogies — it is no contradiction to deny both ‘a triangle exists’ and ‘the triangle’s angles total 180 degrees’. So, the ontological argument mistakenly treats existence as analytic, when in fact existence statements are synthetic and require evidence.
---
V. Evaluating the Limitations and Consequences of the Ontological Argument
The epistemological implications of the ontological argument are considerable. If it were successful, it would demonstrate that some truths — even about matters as consequential as God’s existence — could be known entirely independently of experience. However, if our concepts are unreliable windows into reality, the argument falters. Human understanding, especially on matters as profound as God, is always coloured by cultural context, linguistic conventions, and individual limitations.Semantic and logical precision is also crucial. Without care, we risk conflating features of words (conceptual existence) with features of things (actual existence). Debates about language and meaning press upon the argument: does talk of a ‘necessarily existing being’ say more about the structures of our language than about the world itself?
For religious belief, these disagreements are significant. The ontological argument’s elevation of reason may support some philosophical forms of theism, but it may appear cold or irrelevant to many believers whose faith rests upon lived experience, scripture, or tradition. At the same time, philosophical proofs such as the ontological argument can enrich religious understanding, stimulating deeper reflection and demonstrating respect for intellectual inquiry within faith.
---
VI. Contemporary Perspectives and the Ontological Argument’s Legacy
Despite — or perhaps because of — the weight of criticism, the ontological argument has proven remarkably resilient. Twentieth-century figures, such as the Oxford philosopher Norman Malcolm, and more recently Alvin Plantinga, have sought to reformulate the argument using modal logic — considering possible worlds as a way of analysing necessity and contingency. These reformulations address some classical objections, but also raise further questions about the coherence and metaphysical commitments of modal talk.The argument continues to play a central role in British philosophy of religion courses, valued as much for its methodological boldness as for its substantive conclusions. It represents an ambitious attempt to test the limits of a priori reasoning, prompting ongoing debate about the relationship between thought, language, and reality.
Educationally, engagement with the ontological argument sharpens students’ abilities to distinguish between types of reasoning, the significance of definitions, and the subtleties of logical analysis. It demands care in reading, in constructing arguments, and in evaluating abstract claims — qualities prized across the humanities.
---
VII. Conclusion
In examining the ontological argument, one can only admire its ingenuity and the intellectual legacy it has bequeathed. Beginning as an exercise in pure reason, it aspires to establish perhaps the most momentous claim possible by analysis of a single concept. Yet, as this essay has reviewed, the philosophical objections — whether focusing on the reliability of definitions, the nature of existence, or the role of experience — expose significant limitations.Despite these challenges, the argument endures, not always as a proof in itself, but as a landmark in the interactions between language, logic, and metaphysics. Its value, perhaps, is found as much in the questions it raises as in any answers it supplies. For students and scholars alike, grappling with the ontological argument is an invitation to think carefully about the foundations, scope, and aims of philosophical reasoning and to continue the enduring dialogue between faith, reason, and the pursuit of truth.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in