(A) Explain how Descartes developed Anselms argument that Gods existence is necessary.

(25) Anselm used the Ontological Argument to prove that Gods existence is necessary. The origins of this argument are found in Anselms writings, he began with a quotation from a Psalm The fool says in his heart, there is no God and then reflected on the truthfulness of this. Anselm defined God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived assuming you accept this a priori definition Anselm went on to state that anyone who denies Gods existence is a fool. He observed that it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone (you would prefer to have a real 20 note than an imaginary one). Someone who doubts Gods existence must have a concept of God in order for them to be able to reject it therefore if the concept of God is the greatest conceivable being then he must exist. He argued that existence was part of perfection, so if God is the greatest being (with all perfections) then it is necessary that he exists otherwise he cannot be the greatest conceivable being and that is not to Anselm the definition of God, the very fact that we can conceive of him as the greatest being proves, for Anselm, that he exists. For Anselm someone who denies Gods existence is essentially saying God, who exists, does not exist. Gaunilo responded to Anselms argument with On behalf of the fool. He insisted that if Anselms argument is correct it should prove the existence of all other perfect things, he gave the example of a perfect island observing that if someone tried to prove to him the existence of such an island using the same reasoning that it would not mean that the island does in fact exist. Anselm then in response went on to develop his argument further he stuck with his definition of God as the greatest conceivable being and still argued that it was greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone but he went on to ask if it is greater for a being to have contingent existence (meaning existence which can be conceived not to exist) or to have non contingent existence (meaning existence which cannot be conceived not to exist). Clearly non contingent existence is greater and therefore according to Anselm it must be a quality of the greatest conceivable being - God. Necessary existence is only a quality of the greatest conceivable being, so only God must exist, necessary existence is his nature, existence is only a part of the natures of other things (like Islands). Descartes developed Anselms argument that Gods existence is necessary, it is based on the idea that God exists to guarantee what can be known. However, there are a few important differences to note between the argument of Descartes and that of Anselm (that Descartes added as he developed the argument). Anselm stated that God is the greatest conceivable being and argued that the existence of God is self evident based on intuitive certainty. Descartes developed this further and aimed to prove Gods existence by using a geometrical example, he argued that Gods existence is as necessary as a shape with three angles having three sides. He pointed out that we do not need to develop complex logical proofs to prove Gods existence just as we do not to prove that the triangle has three sides. Descartes argued that just as the essence of the triangle is to have three sides the essence of God requires him to exist. As he is a supremely perfect being the concept of necessary existence cannot be separated from God.

Descartes built upon many of Anselms points in order to argue that Gods existence is necessary. Descartes believed our knowledge of Gods existence is intuitive (similarly to the way that Anselm stated that even the atheist has a concept of God) according to both Descartes and Anselm this intuitive knowledge when analysed is enough to prove Gods existence. Descartes stated that if someone can clearly see that something is intrinsic to the concept of a thing that it must be correct like the triangle having three sides. There are features that a being or an object must have in order to be that thing. For him these statements are self evident and do not require empirical evidence to prove that they are correct. Descartes also approached his argument from a different angle. He said that necessary existence is a part of perfection and therefore the fact that we can conceive of a supremely perfect being proves that a supremely perfect being must exist as otherwise it would not be supremely perfect. Descartes argued that to suggest that any feature of perfection does not exist in a supremely perfect being is illogical. To deny this in his opinion is the same as denying that a triangle has three sides or that a bachelor is not single. Anselm argued that God is the greatest conceivable being and Descartes also agreed with this point, they both made the assumption that existence is a predicate and a feature of perfection (something that Kant went on to argue against). Both strands of Anselms argument can be seen in Descartes argument, the main point of Anselms that Descartes uses is the idea that God is a perfect being and therefore cannot not exist meaning that his existence is necessary. (B) Evaluate the claim that Gods existence is not a logical necessity (10). Gaunilo opposed the ontological argument; he stated that you cannot think something into existence. In On behalf of the fool he responded to the first strand of Anselms ontological argument, he argued that just because something is perfect does not mean that it exists. He gave the example of a perfect island and said that if someone who wanted to prove to him that the island existed used the same argument as Anselm that it would not prove that the island did in fact exist. Kant also agreed that the existence of God is not a logical necessity, he argued that existence is not a predicate and went on to explain that to say that something exists or does not exist does not add to the concept of it thus providing you agree with this defeating the argument that Gods existence is necessary. If you were to say that God is omniscient it would add information to the concept of God, however, existence does not add to the concept or the essence of God instead it is a part of the subject. This was in response to Descartes who had stated before that existence is a necessary property to the concept of God. The main problem with the claim that Gods existence is a logical necessity in the ontological argument is that both Anselm and Descartes make the assumption that existence is a predicate and is a part of being perfect and depending on whether you share or reject this belief you will most likely come to a different conclusion and it is difficult to prove or disprove such a claim. Some may argue that as it is greater to exist in both reality and in the mind that this makes sense because if God is the greatest conceivable being he must have every aspect of greatness and perfection.

I would argue that Kant is correct to argue that existence is not a predicate and that statements concerning existence are in fact synthetic they can only be verified by experience. Ideas and theories do not tell us what actually does and does not exist. A flaw of Descartes comparison to the triangle is that to say that a triangle has three sides does not mean that a triangle necessarily exists in reality, just because the concept of God is perfect does not necessarily mean that he exists. This is why people who oppose the ontological argument sometimes argue that existence is not a predicate and if this belief is accepted the claim that Gods existence is not a logical necessity can be verified. Ciara Moran