Norman Malcolm’s Version

source: Yulia Gorbotova (2014)

Malcolm pointed out the second version of the ontological argument,

“God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.… And [God] assuredly
exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist. For, it is possible to conceive of
a being which cannot be conceived not to exist; and this is greater than one which can
be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived,
can be conceived not to exist, it is not that, than which nothing greater can be
conceived. But this is an irreconcilable contradiction. There is, then, so truly a being
than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived
not to exist; and this being thou are, O Lord, our God”. [Proslogion III]

Malcolm did not offer his own version of the ontological argument. He claims that he
just paraphrases Anselm in the language of contemporary philosophy. Using mostly purely
philosophical speculations rather than rigorous logical constructions, Malcolm comes to the
formulation of evidence, which can be reconstructed as follows:

1) God is a being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Df
2) God is an unlimited being. Df
3) The existence of a being is impossible iff the being is contradictory. Axiom
4) God is not a contradictory being. Assumption
5) A being which came into existence either was caused to come into existence or has
happened to come into existence. Assumption
6) A being which either was caused to come into existence or has happened to come into
existence is a limited being. (5)
7) If God does not exist He cannot begin to exist. (1, 2, 6)
8) If God does not exist He necessarily does not exist. (7)
9) If God exists then He cannot neither begin nor cease to exist. (2, 6)
10) If God exists He necessarily exists. (9)
11) God’s existence either necessary or impossible. (8, 10)
12) God necessarily exists. (3, 4, 11)

There are some problems here. Firstly, the assumption (4) is questionable: why is it true
that God is not a contradictory being? It is easy to conceive that God is contradictory and, then,
non-existent. Another problematic point is (12). The proof goes all the way with the modality de
dicto, it argues that the fact of God’s existence is necessary [His existence is necessary].

However, the conclusion is committed to the modality de re – it claims that God must exist [He
necessarily exists]. Such a transformation of modality seems to be analytical but it is not. In fact,
it is illicit, since de re modality is about necessary things, while de dicto is about the necessary
truth of statements.

Kant is very precise and briefly expresses this idea: “But the unconditioned
necessity of a judgment does not form the absolute necessity of a thing” [7: 345].

Malcolm’s main idea is following. While existence is not perfection, a necessary
existence is. In other words, existence is not a real predicate (and escapes the criticism of Kant),
while necessary existence is real. This assumption is grounded on the understanding that God is
traditionally one who has no restrictions. And, if so, he must be conceived as unlimited in terms
of his existence. From the fact that God is absolutely unlimited in respect of his existence, it
should follow in that God cannot be in time, being solely infinite. To be in no way limited, God
must be eternal. Only allegations of eternity exclude any idea of the duration, which is essential,
because “if a thing has duration then it would be merely a contingent fact, if it was a fact, that its
duration was endless” [5: 48].