Aim: To explore modern support of the Ontological Argument.

1. Aim: To explore modern support of the Ontological Argument. • To know Proslogion 2 and 3 • To be able to explain Malcolm’s addition to the ontological argument. • To consider how well Malcolm’s argument further supports the ontological argument.

2. Norman Malcolm • Norman Malcolm develops proslogion 3 as he sees this as the stronger argument. He sees the strength of the ontological argument as resting with the concept of necessary existence. He builds on this concept by putting it the terms of God’s existence being either logically necessary or logically impossible.

3. Macolm’s Argument • God is, as a conceptual matter (i.e., as a matter of definition) an unlimited being. • The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. • The existence of an unlimited being is not logically impossible. • Therefore, the existence of God is logically necessary. What does Malcolm mean by an unlimited being? (hint: think back to Anselm’s definition) What does he mean by logically necessary? What does he mean by logically impossible?

4. Read what The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy says about Malcolm’s argument – do you think it is worthy of such praise? Explain your answer. • Malcolm's version of the argument is not based on necessary existence being part of the definition of God making seem less like word play. Rather, as we saw above, Malcolm attempts to argue that there are only two possibilities with respect to the existence of an unlimited being: either it is necessary or it is impossible. Malcolm's version of the argument is, moreover, considerably easier to understand than Anselm's versions. Despite this it is more substantial as an argument when compared to Descartes as existence is not seen as a perfection and once again part of the definition of God. Points to think about? Why does the writer think his argument is better than Anselm’s? Is Malcolm’s argument simpler than Descartes?