Exploring the Ontological Argument
For nearly a thousand years, the ontological argument has captured the attention of philosophers. The ontological argument was revolutionary in its sequence from thought to reality. It was an argument that did not require any corresponding experiment in reality; it functioned without the necessity of empirical data. Despite flaws and problems found in some ontological arguments and the objections raised to those arguments, ontological arguments still provide a phenomenal vehicle for ontological discussion through St. Anselm’s original ideas and argument, objections raised, and revisions of previous arguments. The ontological argument still intrigues philosophers despite potential objections and flaws found in it.
St. Anselm: The First Ontological Argument
St. Anselm came up with the first and most well-known ontological argument (Oppy, 2012, para. 2). His argument was conceptual rather than empirical in that it did not require any empirical evidence to ensure the success of his argument (Himma, n.d. para. 3). St. Anselm sought to “gain evidence without the need of a corresponding real-world experiment” (Fehige, 2009, p. 249). According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, St. Anselm’s argument was an “attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God” (Himma, n.d., para. 3). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy further goes on to say that claims of existence usually require empirical evidence or research of some kind (Himma, n.d., sec. 1 para. 1). Now, that’s exactly what St. Anselm’s ontological argument is; it’s a claim of existence. St. Anselm says it is an argument for the existence of God, but for now I will simply use his terms that...
... middle of paper ...
...eferences
Cowan, S. B., & Spiegel, J. S. (2009). The love of wisdom: a christian introduction to philosophy. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.
Fehige, Y. H. (2009). Thought experimenting with god: revisiting the ontological argument. Neue Zeitschrift Für Systematische Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie, 51(3), 249-267.
Himma, K. (n.d.). Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/#H5.
Oppy, G. (2012). Ontological arguments. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/.
Sultana, M. (2012). Anselm's argument: on the unity of thinking and being. New Blackfriars, 93(1045), 276-291.
Wee, C. (2012). Descartes's ontological proof of god's existence. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy, 20(1), 23-40.
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 begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
Aquinas, St. Thomas. “The Existence of God,” in Introduction to Philosophy. 6th edition. Perry, Bratman, and Fischer. Oxford University Press. 2013, pp. 44-46.
Due to the preconceptions I have concerning Anselm’s Ontological Argument, as learnt through course research and lectures. I will like Descartes in his ‘First Meditation’, put these preconceptions to one side and present an essay that explores both sides of the argument in an attempt to reach an independent conclusion. However, I hope to reach the same conclusion as I had before – that is, that the Ontological Argument can be refuted on the basis that there exists a fundamental dissimilarity between the concept of existence in our minds, and that of existence in reality. This essay will present two objections to Anselm’s Ontological argument, namely, the ‘Perfect Island Objection’ and the ‘Existence is not a Predicate’ objection, whilst also discussing possible responses to these objections.
1 Roger Ariew & Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An anthology of primary sources. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998.
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.
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
As a simplified version of Anselm 's ontological argument, the argument mentioned in the question is noticeably flawed, and I will make reference to Gaunilo 's refutation, Kant 's argument as
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).
St. Anselm. “St. Anselm’s Presentation.” Philosophy The Quest for Truth Louis P. Pojman ed.: Wadsworth Publishing Company. USA. 1999: 68-69.
3. "Some Key Arguments From Meditation III-V." New York University. New York University , Web.
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.
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.
In Anselm’s “Proslogion” and Descartes’ “ Meditations on First Philosophy,” Anselm and Descartes offer their own answers to one of the most important questions in life, which is whether God exists. I will point out similarities and differences in the two arguments, and I will argue why Descartes ‘proof’ is more persuasive.
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.