Moving onto the important stuff.
Norman Malcolm was an American philosopher writing in the mid-20th century, who wrote his own version of the ontological argument. As it is still a form of the ontological argument, it remains a priori in nature. It deals with the necessity of God's existence, and begins with an implied, rather than stated (as is the case in Anselm and Descartes' versions), definition of God.
The basic argument follows:
- If God does not exist, his existence is impossible.
- If God does exist, his existence is necessary.
- God's existence is either necessary or impossible.
- God's existence is not impossible.
- Therefore, God's existence is necessary.
At first glance, it is fairly straightforward to follow, but as with any argument for the existence of God, it raises questions.
You might wonder why God has to be either "impossible" or "necessary", with no other options. This is explained by the implied definition of God I was referring to earlier - God is immutable, and to be immutable means to be unchanging. This closes off the options of God being either "contingently non-existent" or "contingently existent". If God were either of these things, it would suggest that God is dependent upon a set of particular circumstances for his existence, which, if changed, would lead to him changing the condition of his existence. It would limit God is some way, and this cannot be true of an immutable God.
We are left with two options - God exists necessarily, or God does not exist necessarily. This can also be phrased as God's existence being necessarily true, or necessarily false. Malcolm sees impossible statements as those that are logically self-contradictory, such as "this square is round". The statement "God exists" is never self-contradictory, and it is possible to think that it is true, and so we are left with this option alone.
Therefore, God exists and "necessary existence" is a predicate of God.
The last bit is a bit headache inducing...
A very clear explanation, Saoirse, and not reliant on a structure that you have come across in class or in independent reading: one of your strengths is your ability to re-explain key ideas in your own words.
ReplyDeleteTo push this towards the A*, bring comparisons to other versions of the argument, or other arguments,. into your writing as a matter of course. I'd like to see you working more synoptically. Read Ed's blog on Process Theology as a good example of what I"m getting at.