2.2.8 Norman Malcolm
Malcolm expanded on Anselm’s second argument, where most saw the second argument as a rephrasing of the first, Malcolm saw it as an entirely different argument. He believes that Anselm’s second argument is actually an argument that it is greater to exist necessarily rather than contingently, so it becomes a part of the concept that the greatest conceivable being would exist necessarily rather than contingently. This would free the argument from one of Kant’s critiques; the critique that existence isn’t a valid predicate, using this new argument, existence actually adds something to our concept of what God is rather than just being a statement on whether he exists. The crux of the argument is whether or not there exists a unique being that must exist necessarily rather than contingently, everything we know is contingent on something else, for example, you are contingent on your parents.
He goes further …show more content…
It also seems that most of these arguments could just as easily be used to define a Santa or Zeus into existence.
I find Kant’s distinction between the analytic and synthetic especially convincing, you can make a valid argument for God analytically, but in order to truly prove his existence as anything more than conceptual, it must be done synthetically. I cannot believe in God/s without empirical evidence.
3. Conclusion:
In conclusion, I do not find the Ontological argument satisfying; it’s either begging the question, hopelessly vague, full of unsupported assertions, or true on a purely conceptual level with no empirical evidence being presented. There are some valid arguments put forward, but none of them are
Malcolm expanded on Anselm’s second argument, where most saw the second argument as a rephrasing of the first, Malcolm saw it as an entirely different argument. He believes that Anselm’s second argument is actually an argument that it is greater to exist necessarily rather than contingently, so it becomes a part of the concept that the greatest conceivable being would exist necessarily rather than contingently. This would free the argument from one of Kant’s critiques; the critique that existence isn’t a valid predicate, using this new argument, existence actually adds something to our concept of what God is rather than just being a statement on whether he exists. The crux of the argument is whether or not there exists a unique being that must exist necessarily rather than contingently, everything we know is contingent on something else, for example, you are contingent on your parents.
He goes further …show more content…
It also seems that most of these arguments could just as easily be used to define a Santa or Zeus into existence.
I find Kant’s distinction between the analytic and synthetic especially convincing, you can make a valid argument for God analytically, but in order to truly prove his existence as anything more than conceptual, it must be done synthetically. I cannot believe in God/s without empirical evidence.
3. Conclusion:
In conclusion, I do not find the Ontological argument satisfying; it’s either begging the question, hopelessly vague, full of unsupported assertions, or true on a purely conceptual level with no empirical evidence being presented. There are some valid arguments put forward, but none of them are