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.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
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...
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.
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.
Perry, John, Michael Bratman, and John M. Fischer. Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Oxford, 2010.
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).
2. Nolan, Lawrence. "Descartes' Ontological Argument." Stanford University. Stanford University, 18 June 2001. Web. . .
New Essays in Philosophical Theology, ed. Anthony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre, London, S.C.M. Press, 1955, p. 152.
Russell, Bertrand. “Why I Am Not a Christian,” in Introduction to Philosophy. 6th edition. Perry, Bratman, and Fischer. Oxford University Press. 2013, pp. 56-59.
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.
1) Oxford Readings in Philosophy. The Concept of God. New York: Oxford University press 1987
Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen Marie. Higgins. A passion for wisdom : a very brief history of philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Zaehner, R. C.
The study of any particular science involves embracing particular and specific ontology, epistemology and methodologies that are different from each other. Ontology is the concept that defines and explains the essential types of truth (Blaikie 2009). Every field of science constitutes its own ontology and in most cases two types of ontology exists: formal ontology and domain ontology (Blaikie 2009). Formal ontology type of research always postulates something general related to reality while on the other hand domain ontology postulate something specific with regard to different types of truths (Blaikie 2009). On its part epistemology constitute a science concept that defines how human and the general population of the world know and reason the particular truth. The two concepts are differentiated by particular assumptions that are associated with each of them. For instance assumptions associated with ontology include: shallow realist, conceptual realist, cautious realist, depth realist and idealist (Blaikie 2009). On the other hand assumptions related to epistemology include: empiricism, rationalism, falsificationism, neo-realism and constructionism (Blaikie 2009). Therefore the purpose of this essay will be to define objectivism and inteprativism as related to ontology, define positivism and interpretavism as related to epistemology, explain how ontology and epistemology are linked and how they influence each other, before lastly looking at how important ontology and epistemology are.
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.