Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
For and against of ontological argument
Ontological Argument
Ontological argument A* essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: For and against of ontological argument
1) What is the philosophical meaning of “Ontological Argument” ?
I believe that the basic meaning of “Ontological Argument” means that God does exist. I believe that the aim of the ontological argument is to show the non-believers that there is a God. The fool understands the idea that God exists, but the fool doesn’t believe that God exists. The fool must admit that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding. Since there is understanding the previous sentence when he hears it, which means God does exist because whatever is understood exists in the understanding. Anyone who can understand what it means to say that God exist can see that truly God does exist.
2) What is the philosophical meaning of “Rational argument”?
The philosophical meaning of “Rational Argument” has a plausible premise and the conclusion that follows the premise. A rational argument is used in the attempt to answer a philosophical question. A rational argument is an intensifier that is meant to emphasize the difference in an argument.
3) Explain 2 ways in which Anselm’s Argument Differs from Aquinas’s argument for the
…show more content…
Aquinas’s argument believed that even if we were to assume that everybody shared identical concepts of God as a being than which none can be imagined. Aquinas argument also believes that there is no such way that any being can exist without no cause. God is the cause and man is the effect while Anselm’s argument mainly focuses on the mental aspect of the existence of God. Aquinas’s argument focuses on the actuality of God existence while Anselm’s argument focuses on the mentally of the existence of God. Anselm’s argument believes if you understand the existence of God then you basically believe in God. Aquinas rejects the Ontological Argument on the point that human cannot know the nature of God while Anselm’s argument stat
Examining the two works against each other as if it were a debate makes it a bit clearer to compare. Aquinas, reveals his argument under the groundwork that there are essentially two methods of understanding the truth. One being that it can be surmised through reason an logic, and the other being via inner faith. On the surface at this point it could be argued that this ontological determination a bit less convoluted than Anselm, yet I tend to think it could be a bit more confusing. This is what leads him to the claim that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone or “a priori”. Stemming from this belief he formulated his Five Proofs or what he called the “Quinquae Viae”. The first of which is fairly simple based on the fact that something in motion had to have been moved. Agreeing that something set it in motion therefor there must have been a...
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”,
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...
Many students who are enrolled in FFA are already heading in the right direction to a bright future. FFA has many career benefits within the program. Any of the career development events (CDE’s) have something that will tie to a career in agriculture or to a career of other sorts. According to the National FFA Organization, “FFA members embrace concepts taught in agricultural science classrooms nationwide, build valuable skills through hands-on experiential learning and each year demonstrate their proficiency in competitions based on real-world agricultural skills”(“Statistics”). There are so many careers that tie into FFA, and many of them have to do with agriculture. Not every career that has to do with agriculture is about farming. There are so many different aspects of the agriculture industry that many people never think twice about. Most people are not interested in agriculture because they think it is just about farming or
In arguments there are three major types of classifications, forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. An example of a forensic argument would be the article “The Assassination in Israel That Worked” by Roger Cohen for the New York Times. “Arguing For and Against Genetic Engineering” by Chris Seck for the Stanford Review, and “Crowd Fill Washington For Inauguration” by Carol Morello, Allison Klein, and Donna St. George for the Washington Post are great examples of deliberative and epideictic arguments, respectively. I will examine the article by Chris Seck, specifically for it’s qualifications of a deliberative argument.
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.
Have you ever felt stuck? Wherever you are, it’s the absolute last place you want to be. In the book Into the Wild, Chris McCandless feels stuck just like the average everyday person may feel. Chris finds his escape plan to the situation and feels he will free himself by going off to the wild. I agree with the author that Chris McCandless wasn’t a crazy person, a sociopath, or an outcast because he got along with many people very well, but he did seem somewhat incompetent, even though he survived for quite some time.
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.
In chapter three, there is a somewhat disparate side of the ontological argument. It centers on the nature of God rather than the meaning of him. Particularly, this chapter centers on the early quality of God, that is, the fact that he needs to exist. Inanimate things, supplementary living things, and humans are contingent.... ...
“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both” (Roosevelt). The goal of America’s legal system as we know it is that everyone is given an equal opportunity to stick up for what they may or may not have done, as described by former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Also this is what officials strive for, it is not always the case. Facts can be skewed, distorted, or misrepresented to make one side seem to be guilty without a doubt and to make the other side seem as if they have done nothing wrong. The Crucible by Arthur Miller begins and ends with one-sided accusations of witchcraft. It all results from a group of girls who had been dancing in the woods. After two fall sick, the accusations begin. The girls who were dancing, especially Abigail Williams begin blaming others to look less guilty themselves. Accusations are flying left and right so that soon, hundreds are in jail and over a dozen are executed. Abby’s main goal is to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor, so she can be with John Proctor, a man she previously had an affair with. However, John is not interested in Abby and his
It is important to show why the topic you are discussing is important, especially if there are other topics that could be studied in place of the one you are discussing. In this case, the discussion is on Saint Anselm and his Ontological Argument. There have been other arguments made before Saint Anselm on God's existence, and the first paragraph will show why it is important to study this particular argument. Then the argument itself is given and discussed. And just like most arguments in the field of philosophy, the Ontological Argument has an objection. This too is given and discussed.
Every person has wondered about something - whether it be a person, place, thing, law, or anything that someone can think about. They ask questions both rhetorical and actual to themselves, and usually make it a mission to answer these questions. Some of the biggest questions have something to do with culture and religion. One of the most major questions of all time - to what extent does an individual have control over the outcome of his or her life? There are many different opinions on this topic.
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.
Anselm’s argument deals with his definition of what God is while Descartes uses the idea that every idea has a cause. This is an important difference because Anselm is able to jump directly to his conclusion, and Descartes still has more work to do to prove his argument. Descartes is then faced with a predicament of establishing who or what created this idea of God. Lastly, another difference is that Descartes discusses finite and infinite substances. According to Descartes, infinite substances are more real than finite substances, and with this fact along with his causality assertion, he is then able to reach the conclusion that God exists. Both arguments start from the same foundation and then branch out from each other until the same conclusion is
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.