I think, therefore; I am

             An Introduction to the Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is a well-known argument that has been around since Anselm brought it forward in the 11th Century; more recently Rene Descartes reformatted this argument in a logical way. He used clear and distinct reasoning, the trademark of his philosophical work, Meditations on First Philosophy. He eliminated all sensory experience from this very controversial argument, in hopes of having no wrong premises in formatting his argument. It’s controversial because of the abundance of critiques and criticisms, as well as the many modern day adaptations that have been set forth. Please note that in this paper I do not intend to, or attempt to, establish truth in Descartes’ ontological argument. Better yet, I hope to, as he did, put forth the evidence in the clearest way in order to teach, and inform the readers, of Descartes’ intention in this argument. I leave the analysis wholly to the reader and hope to clarify that of all who tried their hands at the ontological argument, Descartes shows the most prowess in attempting this insurmountable feat. But before we get into the main focus of this paper, Descartes, we must first understand an overview of the primary form of this argument that Anselm procured.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument
Anselm (1033-1109) was a Neoplatonic Realist. His argument, from Proslogion 2 was not necessarily put forward to prove God’s existence, but rather to explain how the idea of God had become self-evident to him.

1. We conceive of God as a being that which no greater can be conceived.
2. This being than which no greater than can be conceived either exists in the mind alone or both in the mind and reality.
3. Assume that this being than which no greater than can be conceived exists in the mind alone a. Existing in both the mind and in reality is greater than existing solely in the mind b. This being, existing in the mind alone, can also be conceived to exist in reality. c. This being existing in the mind alone in not therefore the being than which no greater can be conceived. (See statement 1 above.)
4. Therefore, this being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as exists in the mind. The main difference between the two arguments is that Anselm’s fight is to prove that God’s existence is “self-evident”, meaning it’s intuitive that we know that He exists. Descartes on the other hand fights to prove that God’s existence is necessary, in that he starts out eliminating all intuition and sensory experience in starting his proofs. With the prerequisite example Descartes then formulated his own model of the ontological argument.
   

Descartes’ Ontological Argument
Descartes (1596 – 1650) came up with his argument upon moving away from Aristotelian Philosophy and deriving his proof for God’s existence by scientific certainty.2 By scientific certainty, I mean that he came to his conclusions, and premises, by using rational proofs instead of sensory experience. He did this as to alleviate our senses which can deceive us. His most prominent explanation comes in his 5th Meditation.

…from the very fact that I can derive from my thoughts the idea of something, it follows that I clearly and distinctly recognize as characteristic of this thing does in reality characterize it … It is certain that I find in my mind the idea of God, of a supremely perfect being… and I recognize that an actual and eternal existence belongs to His nature.
He goes on to say that he “cannot conceive of God except as existing” and that “it is not, in [his] power” to think of “a supremely perfect being without a supreme perfection.” The main point he’s trying to establish is that of necessary existence. When the human mind conceives of a being that is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, and absolutely perfect it’s a different kind of experience, it’s a necessary or eternal existence. The person must conclude that existence follows from perfection. We can’t derive this existence from a body or the nature of a body. Existence is possible, at least, as with all other things that we have a distinct idea of. We cannot think of God’s existence as being possible without then agreeing that He can exist by his own might. It follows from this that we must think of his existence as eternal. Since we can only conceive of things as existing then possible or contingent existence is attributed to limited things. However, necessary and perfect existence can be ascribed to only that of a supremely perfect being. If something is contained in the nature or concept of that thing then it must be true of that thing. Since necessary existence is contained in the concept of God, then God must exist. As can be seen from this summary of his argument it is a considerably revised and different version of Anselm’s argument. Most people interpret his argument as using existence as a predicate or perfection, however this doesn’t fully agree with Descartes’ full argument. He uses necessary existence, rather than simply existence and although it may seem like semantics but it’s a crucial aspect in fully understanding the argument. Necessary existence means that the being must exist, because other life if dependent on that which is necessary. Existence, in this sense, is an unnecessary trait; things like a human or a table do exist, but are not necessary in the grander scheme of the universe. Another very important aspect is the distinction between contingent and necessary properties. Everything that’s rationally believable is a possible existent, whereas God is a necessary existent. Some critics don’t understand this distinction as well as others, and still seem to attack the premises of Descartes, but that’s not all they’ve attacked in the years of philosophical onslaught.

Critics and Critiques
There are numerous aggressors to Descartes’ argument; many bright minds seek to discredit this argument and depending on interpretation they could either be successful in their goals or fall short. We’ll start out with Hume’s assessment in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

…there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being; therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
He also goes on the say that we cannot have any hypothetical idea of existence outside of our ideas of objects. He follows that up with stating that the idea of God doesn’t imply existence. We can conceive of God as either existing or not because existence is not a quality or perfection, God does not need to exist. God’s existence is not contradictory.

In similar disdain the brilliant mind of Kant sets forth his own attack in his Critique of Pure Reason. He questions whether or not we can truly understand what a necessary being is. He uses Descartes’ own “Three-angled triangle” example. This statement is only necessarily true if a triangle actually exists, Kant states. To follow he says that if “X exists” is accepted as a true premise if means that “if X exists, it exists necessarily” . He goes on to say that a contradiction arises when the subject and predicate remain the same; therefore, non-existence cannot be contradictory. The statement “God exists” must either be an analytic or synthetic proposition. Analytic posits that the predicate is something that is already expressed in the concept, better known as a tautology. From this it would say that Descartes’ argument is only true because of the meaning of the words. If the proposition is synthetic, then the predicate links the concept, here being existence, to something outside of itself, and since existence isn’t contained within the meaning of God, then proof of God’s existence must be found before the ontological argument can be found true. One of the most interesting arguments that seemed to have simply been shrugged off was the “Fools Argument”. This was directed at Anselm, but can work also for Descartes’ argument. The fool stated that “that which no greater can be conceived” is impossible to understand. This brought Anselm to call the man who brought forward this question a fool and say that there must be a certain level of intelligence assumed in proposing the argument. This argument, when applied to Descartes, can pose quite a challenge. If, the concept of God is inconceivable, then we cannot come to the solution that God exists, primarily because the conception of God in all his power is a premise to the argument as a whole. To nullify these seemingly defeating critiques is no simple matter at first glance, but with the use of Descartes’ own words we can attempt to keep validity to the argument.

Response to Criticisms
Descartes wasn’t around when some of these criticisms surfaced, leaving the task for researchers to delve into the spirit of his words to understand how he would reply to them. With that said, looking into his words gives a pretty clear refutation of most, if not all, of his criticisms. Existence, for Descartes, is contained in the idea or concept of everything, because “we can conceive nothing except as existent”.7 A concept that isn’t self-contradictory signifies a possible existent. “If Descartes’ argument requires existence be a predicate, it’s a universal predicate of all concepts. To predicate of something the ability to exist of its own might eternally does add something to a concept.” What David is saying here is that if a being has the
“ability to exist of its own might eternally” that is a predicate of Descartes’ existence. David Banach makes an interesting analysis in his paper. Even though he doesn’t agree that Descartes is using existence as a predicate, he’s using the essence of God, omnipotence, to explain that existence can be a predicate. He’s taking the stand and defending a refutation that he doesn’t even believe is sound, but still seeming to solidify Descartes’ correctness in this argument.

As far as the “Fool’s argument” goes, we have no exact words in defense of Descartes either, but we do have his predecessor, Anselm’s, stance. It’s called the fools argument because Anselm puts that if one doesn’t understand the definition of God, that man is a fool. This gets us into a rather difficult position. One must understand the definition of God and accept it in order to fully understand and validate the ontological argument. The burden of proof in this situation would have to be on Anselm’s side, and he seems to fail this task by simply calling the oppressor a fool.

Personal Response to Argument / Criticisms
Personally, I find a few flaws in the argument. Descartes says that God’s existence isn’t a possible existence, rather it’s necessary. It’s necessary for God to exist since it’s in His nature. But, how do we know what His nature really is? It seems that the concept of God is a contradiction, seeing as how He’s all powerful; He could have the ability to not exist. This may seem contradictory to what a being in fact is, but the concept of God breaks all rational boundaries. It is a being that doesn’t tangibly exist, but yet has effect on human’s everyday lives, therefore, we can’t anthropomorphize God to have human attributes. I believe that it would be a weakness for God not to exist, but it doesn’t mean that He couldn’t contain all the power to do anything. He could have omnipotence, but only choose to exist; this makes Descartes’ argument invalid because His existence isn’t necessary. If we’re going to apply God to our own lives to the best of our ability, the only thing we as humans can understand is action and reaction. This could be compared to a light switch, it can’t be necessary that the switch is on but not have the ability to turn off, because everything has two sides to it.

Conclusion
In the defense of Descartes, I believe this paper was written in a time when it was treason against the church to speak about God not existing. He could have been excommunicated from his community if he was thought to believe that God didn’t or couldn’t exist. Most people had a view or conception of God and accepted Him, so once that premise was agreed on this argument isn’t too far off from establishing some sort of truth. However, this paper is about the argument and it’s standing in today’s time following the most relevant criticisms.
In this paper I’ve shows the argument, basis, prerequisite, and criticisms of Descartes’ ontological argument. His argument can be either believed or denied but it must be acknowledged as clear and distinct in its approach. We must understand that it could be true if we had full knowledge of God and His essence. In the end it comes down to interpretation and how each individual understands the concept of God, rather than how someone tells you to see His existence. From Anselm’s argument to Descartes’ and from Hume’s critique to Kant’s I hope I’ve explained clearly and thoroughly that Descartes gets his point across in establishing the truth, and proof, of God’s existence in his own eyes.

Works Cited
Archie, Lee C. “St. Anselm, "Ontological Argument”“ Philosophy Home Page. Philosophy Lander, 24 June 2006. Web. Nov. 2011. http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/anselm.shtml.
Allen, Diogenes; Springsted, Eric O. (2007). Philosophy for Understanding Theology. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 165.
Banach, David. "Descartes’ Ontological Argument.” Web. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/Descartes%20Ontological%20Argument.htm.
Brown, Michelle. “Descartes’ Ontological Argument.” Sharp Serif. Web. Nov. 2011. http://www.sharpserif.com/descartes-ontological-argument/.
Davis, Stephen T. (1997). God, reason and theistic proofs. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 27-28
“Descartes, Rene - Meditations on First Philosophy.” Classical Library - Home. Web. Nov. 2011. http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations/8.htm.
“Early Modern Philosophy Paper Topic.” Ask Me Help Desk. Web. Nov. 2011. http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/philosophy/early-modern-philosophy-paper-topic-465498.html.
Grier, Michelle (February 29, 2004; substantive revision 28 February, 2007). “Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Hume, David. “Part 9.” Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Wikisource. Web.
“‘A’ Level Philosophy and Ethics Notes.” Descartes. Abingdon. Web. Nov. 2011. http://study.abingdon.org.uk/rs/AS%20Philosophy%20notes/descartes.pdf.
Marcus, Russel. “Intro to Philosophy.” Lecture Notes, August 30th. Web. http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Intro_F07/Lecture_Notes/August_30.pdf.
“Meditations on First Philosophy.” Rene Descartes, Meditations. Trans. Laurence J. Lafleur. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960. 62. Print.
Nolan, Lawrence. “Descartes’ Ontological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. Web. Nov. 2011. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/.
Philisophical Works of Descartes II. Trans. Elizabeth S. Haldane and G. R. T. Ross. Dover, 1955. 57. Print.
Russell, Paul (4 October 2005). “Hume on Religion”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Nov. 2011