Explain the development of the Ontological Argument
The Ontological Argument was constructed differently to arguments such as, the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument. Whilst, these two were developed through revelation by drawing conclusions from observing external factors. The Ontological Argument was brought together through reason, this is the process of drawing conclusions through the mind’s logic.
The Ontological Argument was based on the idea that we can prove the existence of God using our reason alone, therefore using a priori knowledge. According to the Ontological Argument, the definition of God is “that then which nothing greater can be conceived”. This is a logical tautology, meaning it is true by definition.
The key figure that created this definition was St. Anselm of Canterbury whose essential claim was that “existence is a predicate of God”, which is an intrinsic quality of God’s nature. It should be noted that in the historical context that the Ontological Argument was written, the idea of God was a given. It would be incredibly rare to find a medieval scholar who did not believe in God.
St. Anselm presented this argument in his works, Proslogion. This started from a theistic stance, it was an argument in response to Psalms 14 and 53. These biblical teachings began as “The Fool says to himself ‘There is no God,”. Although, this argument may appear to be attempting to convert, it is actually a “faith seeking understanding” argument. The majority of Anselm’s audience were theists.
The first part of his argument was concerned with proving God’s existence. He began with the definition “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” (Id quo nihil maius potest). From this definition, he a...
... middle of paper ...
...ceived”. The idea of God not existing is not possible as mountains must have valleys. This conclusion is better explained through his line of argument that “the mind cannot conceive of perfection without also conceiving of existence”.
In conclusion, although Descartes and Anselm’s arguments were produced in two different periods; they follow the same line of thinking. Through a priori knowledge and reason, they have drawn the conclusion that God exists. The fundamental part of the Ontological Argument is that, we are able to prove God’s existence because we are able to believe it so. The Ontological Argument does not look at designs in the physical universe, but at our mind’s logic that had led to the belief that God exists in reality. “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” – God is greater than anything that exists in both reality and thought.
In this paper, I will explain how Descartes uses the existence of himself to prove the existence of God. The “idea of God is in my mind” is based on “I think, therefore I am”, so there is a question arises: “do I derive my existence? Why, from myself, or from my parents, or from whatever other things there are that are less perfect than God. For nothing more perfect than God, or even as perfect as God, can be thought or imagined.” (Descartes 32, 48) Descartes investigates his reasons to show that he, his parents and other causes cannot cause the existence of himself.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
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...
St Anselm’s argument was from a theistic stance, he had produced the Ontological Argument in a time period where the existence of God was a given. It was very rare to find atheists, therefore it may seem that the Ontological argument was used to convert atheists, it was a response to Psalms 14 and 15 which begins as “The Fool says to himself “there is no God”. However, the argument is actually from a “faith seeking understanding” view and only wants to get closer to understanding the nature of God.
In the “Mediations of First Philosophy” Descartes tries to prove the existence of God in the third meditation. He does this by coming up with several premises that eventually add up to a solid argument. First, I will explain why Descartes ask the question, does god exist? And why does Descartes think he needs such and argument at this point in the text. Secondly, I will explain, in detail, the arguments that Descartes makes and how he comes to the conclusion that God does exist. Next, I will debate some of Descartes premises that make his argument an unsound one, including circular reasoning. Finally, I will see if his unsound argument has diminished and undermined his principal goals and the incorrigible foundation of knowledge.
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.
Descartes often referred to as the “Father of Modern Philosophy” acquired his status by methods of reasoning to attain knowledge through one of his most influential philosophical writings Meditations on First Philosophy. One of the most pronounced and skeptical pieces from the mediations is Meditation III: “Of God: that He exist” where he tries to prove the existence of God, and his existence through God. I will be examining Descartes’ proof through its premises and conclusion as well as explain my reasoning for agreeing with the argument on the existence of God.
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.
One of the most intriguing and admittedly baffling arguments for the existence of God is the ontological argument. It was developed by St Anselm in the 11th century, and the reason said argument is considered unique is because it is an a priori argument rather than an a posteriori argument , which most other arguments for the existence of God tend to take form. It attempts to prove the existence of God, not through any physical evidence, but rather by claiming that the very definition of God is proof enough of his existence; that he is an underlying truth in much the same way mathematical truths are inherently known.
... God alone remains; and, given the truth of the principle that whatever exists has a cause, it follows, Descartes declares, that God exists we must of necessity conclude from the fact alone that I exist, or that the idea of a supremely perfect – that is of God – is in me, that the proof of God’s existence is grounded in the highest evidence” Descartes concludes that God must be the cause of him, and that God innately implanted the idea of infinite perfection in him.
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
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.
Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas. Descartes uses negation to come to the conclusion that ideas do not come from the world or imagination; because the world contains material objects, perfection does not exist.
Descartes’ attempts to extricate himself from his sceptical doubts of the meditations had a varying degree of success, his doubt of his own existence was well surmounted with the indubitable ‘cogito’ argument. The second of his doubts, that of the existence of God was not extricated as successfully with the unconvincing trademark argument and the out of date ontological argument. Descartes then went on to tackling his doubt regarding the existence of the external world, which was done well but was based on the shady proofs for the existence of God. Descartes may not have proven the existence of God or the existence of the external world however he did produce a new style of philosophy in which he attempted to base all of his epistemological knowledge (or beliefs) on a single indubitable premise, this style of philosophy now known as foundationalism has been and is still used by philosophers today at great credit to Descartes, Rene Descartes proved himself within this book to be the father of modern philosophy.