Criticisms Of Anselm's Ontological Argument
In this course, we have gone over a lot of topics, that have been interesting and some have been very confusing. One of our topics that I’ve found interesting and I enjoyed was when talked about the weaknesses and strengths of Gaunilo's and Kant's and their ontological arguments.
Anselm’s ontological argument defined God as being “as which no other greater can conceive.” Ontological arguments tend to start with a priori theory about the organization of the universe. If the organization falls under being true there will be evidence of the existence of God, in this case. Anselm argues if God is defined as nothing which can be greater, than he must exist in the mind, even in the mind of fool who denies the existence of God. He then concluded, …show more content…
Everyone’s idea of perfect are different and that might be the problem with there being so many arguments on this subject and so many critics towards others views. I do not think the idea of perfect is logical and do not think anything is necessarily perfect. I can see why they used the theory of God being a perfect human being because who is better to look up to than someone claiming to be perfect.
Kant’s primary criticism was mainly directed at Decartes, but also at Leibniz and argued the intelligibility of a necessary being. He based his ideas on logic rather than thought “a triangle has 3 angles” and “God existence”. His necessary proposition stated for a triangle to exist it must have 3 angles. It proposed if X exists it exists necessarily, but does not necessarily exist. Kant took a more analytic and synthetic approach to proving God’s existence. "'being is evidently not a real predicate" which cannot be part of the concept of something. He concluded that God is an “object of pure …show more content…
Taking these two statements at face value, it doesn't seem like anyone will ever be able to demonstrate the existence of God. And if this is his position, then he surely can't come up with proof of God's non-existence. The only example we must work with is that a small fraction of the universe that we live on and that humans are the only ones with reasoning ability. Hume is right to say we are constrained by those limitations. And perhaps those raw materials don't provide enough to be able to conceive of the ultimate explanations for the universe. I think that Hume has shown that the "argument from design" has flaws, and so may not be regarded as a "proof". However, the fact that it is not "proof" of God does not discredit it altogether.
Gaunilo, criticized the ontological argument. He argued that the argument cannot work because many believers of God would agree that God cannot be fully comprehended. He argued that the steps of the ontological argument could be used to show a “more excellent” than any other island. On the other hand, Anselm believed, that a being with necessary existence was the only concept this argument worked for. An island could always be improved or updated. The island could never reach a state of perfection as
Anselm’s ontological argument defined God as being “as which no other greater can conceive.” Ontological arguments tend to start with a priori theory about the organization of the universe. If the organization falls under being true there will be evidence of the existence of God, in this case. Anselm argues if God is defined as nothing which can be greater, than he must exist in the mind, even in the mind of fool who denies the existence of God. He then concluded, …show more content…
Everyone’s idea of perfect are different and that might be the problem with there being so many arguments on this subject and so many critics towards others views. I do not think the idea of perfect is logical and do not think anything is necessarily perfect. I can see why they used the theory of God being a perfect human being because who is better to look up to than someone claiming to be perfect.
Kant’s primary criticism was mainly directed at Decartes, but also at Leibniz and argued the intelligibility of a necessary being. He based his ideas on logic rather than thought “a triangle has 3 angles” and “God existence”. His necessary proposition stated for a triangle to exist it must have 3 angles. It proposed if X exists it exists necessarily, but does not necessarily exist. Kant took a more analytic and synthetic approach to proving God’s existence. "'being is evidently not a real predicate" which cannot be part of the concept of something. He concluded that God is an “object of pure …show more content…
Taking these two statements at face value, it doesn't seem like anyone will ever be able to demonstrate the existence of God. And if this is his position, then he surely can't come up with proof of God's non-existence. The only example we must work with is that a small fraction of the universe that we live on and that humans are the only ones with reasoning ability. Hume is right to say we are constrained by those limitations. And perhaps those raw materials don't provide enough to be able to conceive of the ultimate explanations for the universe. I think that Hume has shown that the "argument from design" has flaws, and so may not be regarded as a "proof". However, the fact that it is not "proof" of God does not discredit it altogether.
Gaunilo, criticized the ontological argument. He argued that the argument cannot work because many believers of God would agree that God cannot be fully comprehended. He argued that the steps of the ontological argument could be used to show a “more excellent” than any other island. On the other hand, Anselm believed, that a being with necessary existence was the only concept this argument worked for. An island could always be improved or updated. The island could never reach a state of perfection as