The ontological argument: Anselm's two forms, Descartes' version, the challenges of Gaunilo and Kant (existence is not a predicate), and Malcolm's modal restatement.

What this dot point is asking

This WJEC theme asks you to explain and evaluate the ontological argument, the only a priori argument for God on the syllabus: it tries to prove God's existence from the concept of God alone. You need Anselm's two forms, Descartes' version, the objections of Gaunilo and Kant, and Malcolm's modal restatement. AO1 wants accurate exposition of an unusual argument; AO2 wants a reasoned judgement on whether you can define a being into existence.

The answer

Anselm's two forms

• First form (existence in reality). God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Even the fool who denies God has this concept in his mind. But a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind. So if God existed only in the mind, we could conceive a greater being (one that also exists in reality), which contradicts the definition. Therefore God must exist in reality.
• Second form (necessary existence). A being whose non-existence is impossible (necessary) is greater than one whose non-existence is possible (contingent). The greatest conceivable being must therefore exist necessarily; God cannot be thought not to exist.

Descartes' version

Descartes thus treats existence as one of the perfections that belong necessarily to the most perfect being.

Gaunilo, Kant and Malcolm

• Gaunilo's perfect island. A contemporary of Anselm, Gaunilo argued that the same reasoning would prove the existence of a perfect island (the most excellent island conceivable must exist, or it would not be the most excellent), which is absurd. Anselm replied that the argument applies only to a necessary being, not to contingent things like islands.
• Kant. Kant gave the most damaging objection: existence is not a predicate (a real property). Saying something exists adds nothing to the concept of it; a real 100 thalers contains no more than an imagined 100 thalers. So "existence" cannot be a perfection that makes a being greater, and the argument fails.
• Malcolm. Norman Malcolm revived Anselm's second form: ordinary existence may not be a predicate, but necessary existence is a genuine property. God's existence is either impossible or necessary; if the concept is coherent (not impossible), then God exists necessarily.

Examples in context

Model paragraph (does the modal form escape Kant?). The fate of the ontological argument depends largely on whether Anselm's second form survives Kant's objection. Kant's point is that "exists" does not function like "is red" or "is wise": to say a thing exists is to say the concept is instantiated, not to add a feature to it, so existence cannot count among the perfections that make God the greatest conceivable being. Malcolm concedes this for ordinary, contingent existence but argues that necessary existence is different: a being that cannot fail to exist is genuinely greater than one that merely happens to exist, and necessity is a feature of how a thing exists, not merely that it does. The reply has force, but it relocates the weight of the argument onto a single premise, that God is at least possible. If the concept of a necessary being is incoherent, the argument collapses; if it is coherent, God exists necessarily. A strong evaluation therefore presses this premise rather than re-fighting Kant, since the modal form makes everything turn on whether God is possible.

Try this

Q1. How does Anselm define God? [2 marks]

• Cue. "That than which nothing greater can be conceived."

Q2. What is Kant's main objection to the argument? [2 marks]

• Cue. Existence is not a predicate (a real property), so it cannot be a perfection that makes a being greater.

Q3. Evaluate the view that the ontological argument fails because you cannot define God into existence. [20 marks]

• What the marker wants. A balanced argument weighing Gaunilo and Kant against Anselm's second form and Malcolm's modal defence, with a reasoned judgement.