Explain the reasoning of the Ontological argument as a proof for the existence of God.
Ontological arguments, by their nature attempt to prove the existence of God using deductive reasoning to a point of logical necessity. Constructed as an a priori proof Anselm’s ontological argument works from a position of faith in an attempt to strengthen his belief in the existence of God. Anselm asks the question, ‘can what I know about God, be thought of as correct?’ However, the argument does, in some forms, attempt to prove the existence of God reductio ad absurdum. In this essay I shall follow the reasoning of Anselm alongside a discussion of theistic proofs.
Stephen Davis argues that a theistic proof must be ‘informally sound’, allowing arguments
He defined God as ‘That than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC). Arguably this definition is our best way of understanding of what God is. Even Aquinas, who stated God’s existence is beyond our comprehension, may argue that this definition holds truest to God’s existence, describing him as beyond anything than we can possibly imagine. From here, Anselm moves on to prove the existence of God based on this definition. There are two types of existence, he states, existence in intellectu (in the mind) and existence in re (in reality). The artist can conceive of a painting in intellectu before he makes his creation an actuality (in re). From here Anselm argues that existence in re is clearly greater than existence in intellectu. This seems relatively coherent. Surely, if someone proposed to me the possibility of merely conceiving of £1000 it would be greater to actually have it. Just as Anselm looks at the painter, it appears greater for the painting to actually exist in re than remaining in intellectu. Based on our understanding of God, therefore (TTWNGCBC), even ‘the fool’ (the atheist) can grasp the concept of a being greater than which nothing else can be imagined in intellectu. However, since existence in re is greater than purely existing in intellectu, it would be ‘damaging to God’s nature’, states Lockyer, to exist whereby he could have a
In On Behalf of the Fool Gaunilo argues that just because we can conceive of the perfect ‘something’ it doesn’t mean it actually exists. As a parody Ganuilo argues that the idea of a perfect island seems attractive but that doesn’t mean that somewhere in the world the island actually exists. Similarly, if I can imagine the perfect weekend, greater than which no greater weekened can be conceived, it doesn’t mean it actually exists. While this appears to be a valid criticism Anselm uses it to bolster his reasoning for the proof of the existence of God. While the island is relatable, Anselm’s ‘God’ is ineffable and as such requires no referent. Still though, we are left with the possibility of God not existing (based on on our understanding of the island). Therefore, Anselm introduces the idea of necessary being and contingent beings. We can all conceive of things that can not exist (such as human beings, life and everything within the observable universe) and we can conceive of things that cannot not exist (such as state of affairs and numbers). It is greater for something to exist whereby it cannot not exist. This idea of necessity drives Anselm’s argument to a state where God must exist otherwise it would be ‘damaging to his nature’ to have the possibility of contingent
Anselm’s argument can be summarized as, “1. God does not exist. (assumption) 2. By “God,” I mean that, than which no greater can be conceived (NGC). 3. So NGC does not exist. (from 1 and 2) 4. So NGC has being only in my understanding, not also in reality. (from 2 and 3) 5. If NGC were to exist in reality, as well as in my understanding, it would be greater. (from the meaning of “greater”) 6. But then, NGC is not NGC. (from 4 and 5) 7. So, NGC cannot exist only in my understanding. (from 6) 8. So NGC must exist also in reality. (from 5 and 7) 9. So God exists. (from 2 and 8) 10. So God does not exist and God exists. (from 1 to 9) 11. So Premise 1 cannot be true. (by 1 through 10 and the principle of reduction ad absurdum) 12. So God exists. (from 11)” (262). This quote demonstrates how Anselms ontological proof is “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” in understanding and reality by stating that a contradiction would be made if God didn’t exist in both (262). Aquinas cosmological proof stated that the existence of God could be confirmed in five ways, The Argument- “from Change”, “Efficient Causality”,
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
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...
Firstly, “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” and secondly, “Something that exists in reality (in re) is bound to be greater than something that exists in the imagination (in intellectu). This leads to the conclusion, that as God is “the greatest conceivable thing”.it is only logical that God exists “both in reality and thought”. Anselm’s essential claim was that existence was a “predicate of God” which means a quality of God’s nature. As God is the “greatest conceivable thing”, He must be great in any way possible. This argument can be understood more simply through the illustration of the painter that Anselm used.
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.
Anselm was a stable believer in God, so he wanted to use logic and reason to confirm his forceful faith and clarify God’s existence. Anselm’s argument was given in chapter two of Proslogion. Its main focus was the meaning of God. Furthermore he claims that everyone, whether they trust in God or not agrees alongside this definition. Anselm approves there is a difference amid understanding that God exists and understanding him to be a concept. To clarify this extra, he gives the analogy of a painter. He states that, in advance a gifted painter makes a masterpiece; he can discern it visibly in his mind even nevertheless he knows it doesn’t exist. He comprehends it as an idea. Though, after the painting has been finished and can be perceived by the man in reality, the painter comprehends the believed of the painting and its existence. The upcoming period is the locale that an advocate of God who approves alongside Anselm’s argument will be at.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
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.
The argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be sceptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful. The argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear.
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...
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).
In the words of Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which nothing greater can be conceived but you are also something greater than can be conceived. Indeed, since it is possible to be conceived to be something of this kind, if you are not this very thing, something can be conceived greater than You, which cannot be done. " Anselm suggested a proof for God's existence, however, for God to be God there must be more to Him than that He simply 'exists'.
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...
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.