EnglandReligious StudiesSyllabus dot point

Can the existence of God be proved from the definition of God alone, or do Gaunilo and Kant show that existence cannot be defined into being?

Component 2 the ontological argument: Anselm's first and second forms, Gaunilo's perfect island objection, and Kant's claim that existence is not a predicate, with strengths and weaknesses.

An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the ontological argument. Covers Anselm's first and second forms (God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and necessary existence), Gaunilo's perfect island objection, and Kant's claim that existence is not a predicate, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.816 min answerUpdated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

The ontological argument, unique among the arguments for God, is deductive and a priori: it tries to prove God's existence from the concept of God alone, without appeal to experience. Anselm's first form (Proslogion 2) defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Even the fool who denies God has this concept in mind. But existing in reality is greater than existing in the mind alone, so if God existed only in the mind we could conceive of something greater (a God who also exists in reality), which contradicts the definition; therefore God must exist in reality. Anselm's second form (Proslogion 3) argues that a being which cannot be conceived not to exist (a necessary being) is greater than one which can, so the greatest conceivable being must exist necessarily and cannot be conceived not to exist. Two famous objections follow. Gaunilo replied with the perfect island: by the same reasoning we could define the most perfect island into existence, which is absurd, so the argument's form must be faulty (Anselm answered that the reasoning applies only to a necessary being, not to contingent islands). Immanuel Kant objected that existence is not a predicate: saying "God exists" does not add a property to the concept of God (as "God is good" does) but merely asserts that the concept is instantiated, so existence cannot be defined into a thing. Defenders such as Norman Malcolm and Alvin Plantinga revive the second form, arguing that necessary existence may be a genuine property even if mere existence is not. AO2 marks come from judging whether the argument proves God or only analyses a concept, and concluding.

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
Examples in context
Try this

What this dot point is asking

Eduqas Component 2 studies the ontological argument, the only deductive, a priori argument for God: it tries to prove God's existence from the concept or definition of God alone. You learn Anselm's first form (God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived) and second form (God as a necessary being), Gaunilo's "perfect island" objection, and Kant's claim that "existence is not a predicate". The exam rewards explaining the forms and objections precisely (AO1) and evaluating whether the argument succeeds (AO2).

The answer

Anselm's first form

Anselm's second form

Gaunilo's perfect island

Kant: existence is not a predicate

Examples in context

Building an AO2 paragraph on whether existence can be a predicate

step 1 State the claim precisely

State, do not narrate: "Anselm's argument treats existence as a great-making property, so that a God who exists is greater than one who does not, and the greatest conceivable being must therefore exist."

step 2 Put the strongest objection against it

Bring in the challenge: "Kant objects that existence is not a predicate: 'God exists' adds no property to the concept of God but only says the concept is instantiated, so listing existence among God's perfections cannot make God exist, any more than imagining a hundred real coins puts money in your pocket."

step 3 Weigh the exchange

Judge it: "Kant's point is decisive against the first form, since it shows that defining a thing as existing does not bring it into being; but Malcolm and Plantinga argue that the second form uses necessary existence, which behaves differently from ordinary existence and may be a real property of a being whose non-existence is impossible, so Kant's objection does not obviously transfer."

step 4 Reach a justified conclusion

Close with a defended verdict: "Kant refutes Anselm's first form but not clearly the second: existence is not a predicate, so a God cannot be defined into being by perfection; yet whether necessary existence is a genuine property is contested, so the argument fails as a proof while remaining a serious analysis of what 'God' means, which is why it persuades few who do not already believe." A reasoned conclusion reaches the top band.

Try this

Q1. Explain Gaunilo's objection to the ontological argument and Anselm's reply. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

What the marker wants. Accurate account of the perfect-island reductio and Anselm's response that the reasoning applies only to a necessary being, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.

Q2. "The ontological argument tells us about the concept of God but not about reality." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]

Cue. Weigh Kant's "existence is not a predicate" and the worry that a priori reasoning cannot establish what exists against the Malcolm-Plantinga defence of necessary existence, and judge. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

Eduqas A120 2019 (style)20 marksExplain Anselm's ontological argument in its two forms. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

Show worked answer →

A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain both forms accurately.

First form (Proslogion 2): God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Even the fool who says there is no God has this concept in his mind. But a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists in the mind alone. So if God existed only in the mind, we could conceive of a greater being (one that also exists in reality), which is a contradiction. Therefore God must exist in reality. Second form (Proslogion 3): a being that cannot be conceived not to exist (a necessary being) is greater than one that can; God, as the greatest conceivable being, must therefore have necessary existence and cannot be conceived not to exist. This is a priori and deductive. A top band answer states both forms precisely.

Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"Kant's objection destroys the ontological argument." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]

Show worked answer →

A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.

For the view: Kant argues existence is not a predicate (a property that adds to the concept of a thing); saying "God exists" does not add a feature to God as "God is good" does, but says that the concept is instantiated. So defining God as having existence does not make God exist; existence cannot be built into a definition. This undercuts the whole strategy of the argument. Against: Malcolm and Plantinga defend the second form, arguing that necessary existence (unlike mere existence) may be a genuine property, so Kant's point about existence does not refute it. Weigh whether Kant refutes both forms or only the first, and conclude. Note Gaunilo's perfect island as a separate reductio.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this

Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
Anselm, Proslogion — Project Gutenberg (1078)