The ontological argument is a unique argument among arguments in that it appears to establish the real existence of some being. Gaunilo believed that one could use Anselm’s argument to show the existence of all kinds of non-existent things. Many other philosophers had different views about the argument as well. As it turns out there are two different versions of the ontological argument in the Prosologium. The second version does not rely on the highly problematic claim that existence is a property. One can think of the argument as being powered by two ideas. It is a conceptual truth that God is a being greater than which than is not possible. X exists or it is not the case that X exists. For all Y, if Y is the object of thought, then Y exists only in the mind, or Y exists in the mind as well as in reality. X is the object of thought. X exists only in the mind, or X exists in the mind as well as in reality. To exists in reality, as well as in the mind, is greater than to exist in the mind alone: to exist (in reality) is greater than to not exist (in reality). X does not exist; X exists only in the mind, but not in reality. Since …show more content…
As before, the argument includes a premise asserting that God is a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. But this version of the argument, unlike the first, does not rely on the claim that existence is a perfection, instead it relies on the claim that necessary existence is a perfection. This latter claim asserts that a being whose existence is necessary is greater than a being whose existence is not necessary. Otherwise put, then the second key claim is that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than a being whose non-existence is logically possible. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily
The first argument comes from knowledge and extension. From knowledge, he says if he clearly and distinctly understand one thing as distinct from another then he is certain that he exists as a thinking thing but he still isn 't sure about the existence of his body. Therefore, he is a thinking thing and nothing else. From extension, he is a thing that thinks and not an extended thing but he has a distinct idea of body as an extended thing, therefore his mind is distinct from his body. The second argument he makes is that material objects exist. He can understand himself without imagination and sense, but he cannot understand imagination and sense without attributing them to a thing that thinks. Movement is also a power of mine but movement is a power only of extended things. This leads him to the conclusion that although he is essentially a thinking thing, he is not only a thinking thing. He also has an extended body that we are certain of. We not only have the power of passive sense but an active sense too. This active sensing does not require intellect and comes to us against our will. Therefore, it is either God or and external extended body and since God is no deceiver, material objects
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
Descartes' Meditations Ontological Argument. Descartes's fifth Meditation argument for God's existence relies on an untenable notion that existence is perfection and that it can be predicated on God. I shall first explain what Descartes's argument for God's existence is, and then present his argument in propositional form. I will then attempt to support the argument that existence is neither a perfection nor a predicate of God. In our thoughts we apprehend ideas of things.
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...
To conclude, Anselm’s ontological argument is based purely on reason. Therefore, you must already believe in the idea of God existing in order to accept this argument. This is the a priori aspect of this argument. However, as this argument uses your own logic alone, it does pose contradicting issues which Gaunilo’s critique highlighted. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Anselm’s version of the Ontological argument was based on mind’s logic, rather than revelation as it is very difficult to construct a concept without your environment having an effect on your findings.
Anselm further adds that if this idea could exist not only in his undestanding but also in reality then that would be greater. Futhermore we cannot conceive of God as not existing, becasue that would be less greater than a being which necessarily exists. In addition to this anselm states that God cannot be thought of as non-existent because we cannot conceive of him a beginning or an end. Gaunilo however criticises and objects to Anselms argument that the existece of God can be proved a priori.
Anselm supported the ontological argument because he wanted to clarify that God exists. Deductive and employing priori reasoning is what defines the ontological argument. It begins a statement that is understood to be correct merely be meaning and instituting a proper conclusion for that statement. By employing deductive reasoning it permits Anselm to display what the meaning means. In this paper I will argue that Anselm’s ontological argument does depend on Anselm’s confidential faith in God.
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 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.
Many philosophers, including Elliott Sober, have criticized Anselm for his reply to Gaunilo, as well as Gaunilo's attempt to show the Ontological Argument is not deductively valid. Gaunilo says that there must be something wrong with the argument, but he does not point out where the mistake is. It is necessary to do so because Anselm's argument does look valid. Indeed, Anselm says that the Ontological Argument is deductively valid because of the difference between God and an island. "This seems implausible, since deductive validity doesn't depend on an argument's subject matter, only on its form, and the two arguments have the same logical form" (87).
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.
Over the years, there have been various interpretations given on what Descartes really meant in his ontological argument. However, most of given interpretations only examines the simple meaning of existence but Descartes arguments looks at existence in relation to the perfection of God. In short, what Descartes is claiming is that there is no any other way that he can examine the context of G...
Furthering this line of inquiry into god(s) existence as it has been discussed within my section of Problem of God, the question which all other discourse relies upon is whether or not god(s) exist at all. To tackle this, my class has had readings from two saints, the Proslogion of St. Anselm and St.Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. From the Proslogion, I gleamed circular reasoning. St.Anselm’s argument to prove his God’s existence begins with the caveat that a person must believe in a god figure(s) to even comprehend his argument. Therefore, he is only affirming his God’s existence to those who already believe and reducing his argument to a simple exercise in attempting logic. St. Anselm explains the existence of God as obvious because of the characteristic so tightly bound to being godly, perfection. St. Anselm reasons that perfection is absolutely indicative of true existence. The argument falls apart given a person who does not believe or, if a person does decide to agree with St. Anselm that God exists, the argument can be challenged because of what my
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.
Anselm’s argument for the existence of God is quite simple. He first proclaims that humans can grasp in their mind “something than which nothing greater can be thought” (Anselm 7). This “something” is an all-perfect God. Then, Anselm states that, if the all-perfect God existed only in thought, then something greater than the the all-perfect God can be conceived, namely, an all-perfect God that exists in reality. And