More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for and against the ontological argument
Arguments for and against the ontological argument
Ontological argument breakdown
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The existence of god has always been an arguable topic. How does one justify their faith to a non-believer? The textbook The Philosophers Way described five separate rational proofs for the existence of god. One argument that stood out to me was the Ontological argument. The ontological argument is an argument based on theory, and was created by the medieval thinker Saint Anselm. The arguments attempt to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God. Anselm of Canterbury introduced the ontological argument in his book Proslogion. While opinions concerning the ontological argument differ widely, it is generally agreed that the argument is most convincing to Anselm's intended audience: Christian believers seeking a rational basis for their belief in God. Anselm's argument was based on two principals and the two most involved in this is Saint Anselm of Canterbury who was mentioned before, and Rene Descartes. The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see his existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing …show more content…
His argument is complicated, and is easily disproved. If God is the greatest being, then there is no room for anything else. Therefore, I do not believe Anselm’ argument withstands its critique. Guanilo proves that Anselm’s theory is disprovable because there is no actual evidence of God existing, just as there is no actual evidence that the Lost Island that he explains exists. Anselm states that god not only is a belief, but he actually exists. This theory is not concrete because no one has actually seen god. If he existed, we would need proof, someone had to of seen him, right? If one was to believe the claim that god existed, then ultimately they would believe that he exists. Since to understand is to believe, it is illogical to understand the theory and still not agree with
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
... 77-78. Also, if we follow Karl Barth. s interpretation of Anselm. s ontological argument, then the prayerful context in which Anselm offers his argument gives it a more religious cast. However, whatever similarities may exist I think it vital to recognize the differences otherwise one will expect to find yet another bit of metaphysical argumentation about God and be disappointed at not finding it.
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
In the Proslogion, Anselm tries to prove the existence of God and his powers through the ontological argument. This argument redirects the argument of God’s existence from science and observation to logic, where Anselm explains that there has to be a being that nothing greater can be thought of, and that is God. One of Anselm’s main topics of contention is God’s omnipotence and whether He is actually infinite. In the Proslogion, Anselm talks about God’s omnipotence and if it can be disavowed because of self-contradictory statements, how God’s non-action gives him more possibility and power, and how being all-powerful can lead to God being both merciful and yet not feel the pains of sinners.
Whether god exists or not has been in discussion for thousands of years, and an important discussion. Whether it is rational to believe in god or not is another story, like believing in god itself, this topic has brought many discussions. It is one thing to discuss whether god is real or not and it is a complete other to discuss whether it is rational to believe in god or not. I believe that while there may not be any convincing evidence or arguments that God does exist, I do still believe that it is still rational to believe that god does exist. I think this because, believing in God is not simply just believing that he exists, but believing that it can bring good to our lives, we otherwise would not have. It teaches us to have a moral responsibility not only to others, but ourselves. It is obvious that many people do believe in god, but many of us choose to do so for reasons other than just believing in God. I do believe that just because there is no evidence, that does not mean God doesn’t exist. Like I said, God brings more to our lives than just a belief, but an ability to achieve a better one. And even if God is just an imaginary figure, he is an imaginary figure that brings hope and goodness to our lives, which we can never discount.
Anselm was a stable believer in God, so he wanted to use logic and reason to confirm his faith and clarify God’s existence. Anselm’s argument was given in chapter two of Proslogion. Its main focus is the meaning of God. Furthermore, he claims that everyone, whether they trust in God or not, agrees with this definition. Anselm says there is a difference between understanding that God exists and understanding him to be a concept.
forgiven, so there is no need to ‘force’ yourself to believe. This argument is far from proving the existence of God, it argues more for. the purpose of believing in him rather than whether he actually exists. The.. In conclusion, all the arguments bar one that have been covered have. been strongly criticised, questioning their validity.
There are many theories to why a God might exist, but the Ontological argument tells us that a God is a necessary truth based on the self-contradictory or denying the existence of God. They use the proposition of the concept of God to argue the implied existence of God. This is to suppose that God is by definition the greatest thing imaginable and that to imagine something greater which can also exist is impossible. They use the general rule of positive and negative existential claims to try and prove the existence of God. they do this in a number of ways, with the classic version of the ontological argument being the most recognized, the reductio ad absurdum ("reduction of absurdity") of the ontological argument and the modal versions of the argument. It explains that nothing can exist in the imagination alone, it must also exist in reality to truly exist, and they have decided that there has to be such a being that exists in the imagination and in reality that noting greater can exist. I do not find this argument to be true in stating the fact that God must exist in reality, al...
There are often many mixed views when discussing God’s existence. In Anselm’s works “The Proslogion” and “Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo” and Gaunilo’s work the “Reply on Behalf of the Fool”, both of their philosophies on the matter are imparted. Anselm’s logic regarding God is correct as he sustains his argument even when it confronted with criticisms and it is comprehensible.
Another way that St. Anselm's argument differs from other arguments is that it requires that you look at a definition of the concept of God. As Sober says, the definition of an object does not, in itself, prove its existence. Some examples he gives are unicorns and golden...
The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even atheist had a definition for God even just to disregard his existence; hence God exists in the mind. Anselm said this is so because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind.
Ontological argument tries to prove the existence of God from a priori perspective, i.e., idea implanted in the human mind by God himself. The argument therefore depends on analytic reasoning, from premise to conclusion. Descartes believes that he has an inborn idea which he calls “innate” (p. 43). His ability to think did not cause the idea on his mind, but God’s free will to act. Thereby, as the idea manifest itself to his mind intuitively; it reveals something about its author. The idea allows Descartes to think of a perfect being who must necessarily exist, namely God.
Anselm’s Ontological argument is insufficient in proving that God exists. For the reasons above and further objections from various philosophers, I do not believe that Anselm can argue the existence of God with his current premises as they stand. I must say that despite my objections to Anselm’s Ontological argument, I respect his work done, and the tremendous thought process that must have occurred to conjure up such a case as was presented. It is definitely much easier to prove a mortal wrong than it is to prove the existence of something so great and so unknown. Anselm’s Ontological argument while intriguing does have some problems in my opinion that take away from its validity; but needless to say it is in and of itself quite astounding.
Proving the existence of God is a worthwhile task. If someone did come up with a complete, foolproof argument for the existence of God, the people of the world would have no choice but to believe in His existence. However, even though St. Thomas Aquinas makes a worthy effort, I believe that such a task is not possible through logic and reasoning alone. There is an element of faith that must be present for people to believe, and if that element is not there, no matter how foolproof an argument seems to be, there will always be those who do not believe. In his fifth argument, St. Thomas Aquinas makes as close to foolproof argument that I believe anyone could make, and, for me, it does prove God's existence. However, if that element of faith is not there, I do not think you can completely prove God's existence to everyone.