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
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...
To conclude, Anselm’s ontological argument is based purely on reason. Therefore, you must already believe in the idea of God existing in order to accept this argument. This is the a priori aspect of this argument. However, as this argument uses your own logic alone, it does pose contradicting issues which Gaunilo’s critique highlighted. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Anselm’s version of the Ontological argument was based on mind’s logic, rather than revelation as it is very difficult to construct a concept without your environment having an effect on your findings.
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 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 with a statement that is understood to be correct, merely to 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 depends 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.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
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...
Anselm’s argument is based on the superiority of an existent God over a non-existent God. But as Kant argues, existence is more of a description of the real world, whether a thing exists in it or not, rather than the property of an object. Hence existence or non-existence should not count towards the perfection of any being, be it the greatest being. This implies that a non-existent God is equivalent to an existent God, which causes the ontological argument to fail.
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...
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.
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.