For many, the idea of existence as a predicate causes issues for the ontological argument. In the argument Anselm states that God is a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and using logic he comes to the conclusion that God must exist by definition. This can be seen as strength to the argument as if it is a valid deduction it proves God’s existence to an atheist as well as a believer. However, Kant counters this argument by saying that existence could not be a predicate of anything. This is because a predicate should be something that enriches our concept of what the thing is like. For example, Kant uses the analogy of a pile of one hundred coins, by saying that an imaginary pile of coins has the exact same value as a pile of one hundred coins that exists in reality. By adding existence to the idea it does not enrich our concept of said coins or make them any better, but will only state what is real. Therefore existence can’t be a predicate of anything, so therefore can’t be a predicate of God. As the argument is reliant on this assumption, it falls apart as the deductions made are based on this whole concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept can’t be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. I don’t believe this to be valid however, as we don’t know for certain anything about God’s properties. Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion...
... middle of paper ...
...esses his suspicion of the argument as it “lacks a single piece of data from the real world”. He also says that the argument is infantile because of this. Again, it comes back to the fact that not everyone will define God the same way, which is an intrinsic flaw in the argument. Overall, I think that the fact it is an a priori argument neither helps to prove or disprove the argument, as it can prove the argument to believers, for example, but not atheists.
In conclusion, the ontological argument can’t prove God’s existence, as it is founded on the basis that you already believe in God. As Kant says, you can’t say that existence is a predicate, which once taken into consideration, undermines the basis of the logic of the argument. As a whole the weaknesses of the argument outweigh the strength so therefore, no, the ontological argument does not prove God’s existence.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
To begin with, in order to find Aquinas’ second proof to be a sound argument one must explain the chain of cause and effects that help explain the efficient cause, which is God. There are always things that cause other things. Every effect has a cause, if an effect did not have a cause it would not have been able to exist. Everything could not have come to exist from nothing there has to be a first maker that makes the first being to come to be. God becomes the first efficient cause which starts the chain of cause and effect in which every other thing that is not God depends on Him. Everything that exists from this chain of cause and effect come to be because t...
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...
The Ontological argument was presented in his work “Proslogion” in two parts. It should be noted that this entire argument was formed from reason which is the process of forming conclusions and judgements through logic. As a result, a prior (first hand) knowledge is used. The first part is focused on proving God’s existence.
Aquinas’ third way argument states that there has to be something that must exist, which is most likely God. He starts his argument by saying not everything must exist, because things are born and die every single day. By stating this we can jump to the conclusion that if everything need not exist then there would have been a time where there was nothing. But, he goes on, if there was a time when there was nothing, then nothing would exist even today, because something cannot come from nothing. However, our observations tell us that something does exist, therefore there is something that must exist, and Aquinas says that something is God.
Anselm’s classical ontological argument is criticized precisely for its attempt to define God into existence. The argument is deductive and its form known as reduction ad absurdum. “That is, it begins with a supposition S (suppose that the greatest conceivable being exist in the mind alone) that is contradictory to what one desires to prove” (Pojman 41). In other words, the argument attempts to show a contradiction or absurdity in the opposite view in order to claim his own view is correct.
... does a good job of arguing against the cosmological argument, Aquinas could still be able to defend his argument. Aquinas believes that God’s existence is not only an article of faith. He denies that God’s existence is an unnatural disclosed truth. Instead, Aquinas believes that God’s existence is verifiable. He argues that God’s existence is already presumed through faith and teachings. He claims that God’s existence can be subject to demonstration and that for those believe who believe God’s existence, it will be a matter of faith. Subsequently, not everyone will be able to fully agree with or understand Aquinas’ reasoning or verification for God’s existence. If one agrees with Aquinas they are able to accept his claims through the belief of faithful teachings rather than by the way that those who may not accept it and only search for distinct means of reason.
stronger than those saying it can be. The definition of God for which is being argued is the Christian God who has the qualities of being. perfect and who created the universe. The ontological argument follows that God is perfect and no greater. being is imaginable.
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...
Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God. But as Kant argues, existence is more of a description of the real world, whether a thing exists in it or not, rather than the property of an object. Hence existence or non-existence should not count towards the perfection of any being, be it the greatest being. This implies that a non-existent God is equivalent to an existent God, which causes the ontological argument to fail.
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 for the Existence of God The ontological argument is an a priori argument. The arguments attempt to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God. The ontological argument was introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Anselm's classical argument was based on two principals and the two most involved in this is St Anselm of Canterbury as previously mentioned and Rene Descartes.
This argument simply states that there are too many religious affiliations nowadays to know confidently which one God wants us to believe in, and some of these are in conflict with one another. This prompts the question that any reasonable person would ask: which religion should we believe? In my personal opinion, I believe that God does not discriminate based on religion whatsoever. Similarly to Protestantism, I believe that faith and good works are all that leads to a life in heaven. If this is the case, whatever interpretation someone has of God or religion is not important when discerning whether or not to believe, and therefore is not important when determining the infinite utility of an
This is because it’s possible for everything both to exist and not to exist, therefore both possibilities must have been fulfilled at some point. He phrases it in those terms, but I believe his argument is better understood by saying everything which exists must have come into existence, and therefore didn’t exist before that. Since something cannot spontaneously come into existence, he believes, another being gave everything else existence. This is called a “necessary thing,” meaning its existence is necessary for the existence of other things. Aquinas believes a being bestowed its necessity onto itself and did “not [receive] it from another.” What was a paradox before, an object being both the cause and effect, is now the logic. This object is God, and gave existence to all other
In the following I intend to prove that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that God exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly why ‘The Ontological Argument’ is unsatisfactory.