The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God
The Ontological Argument
P| 1. Definition: God is that being than which no greater being can be conceived.
P| 2. God exists in the mind (we think of God).
A| 3.Assume God exists only in the mind but not in reality (Atheism)
3 4. Then we can conceive of a being just like God but which also exists in reality.
P | 5. Existence is perfection. If two things are alike in all respects except the first exists in reality and the second does not, then the first is greater than the second. 4,5| 6. We can conceive of a being greater than God.
1,6| 7. We can conceive of a being greater than that being than which no greater being can be conceived (CONTRADICTION). …show more content…
RAA7 | 8. Thus we reject the (Atheist) assumption that God exists only in the mind but not in reality.
2,8 | 9. God exists in reality.
Assessing Traditional Arguments about Gods Existence: The Ontological Argument
As we go through our everyday lives, there are always questions we face that many times don’t have immediate answers.
People today and people 300 years ago have looked towards religion, and god specifically to answer the un-questionable. The Ontological Argument is a deductive argument that attempts to show that its premises lead to a logical conclusion, which can’t be doubted. Philosophers have attempted to show that the phrase “God Exists” is a logical statement in that it is logically impossible for it not to be the case, just as it is impossible for a bachelor to not be an unmarried man. The ontological argument proves gods existence because of its apriori …show more content…
proposition.
Anselm’s definition of God is crucial to this argument. Anselm had stated that “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” By this, he meant that it was impossible to think of anything greater than God and soundly, it must be better for this God to exist in reality and not just in the mind. Therefore, if we accept this definition, and Anselm felt that even Atheists would, we must logically conclude that the greatest possible being must exist in reality, otherwise there would be the possibility of something greater existing. Therefore, essentially God exists. Anselm’s second form of the argument focused on God’s “necessary existence.”
This is a valid argument because no one can prove this otherwise and it is a reducio.
To prove God exists, we assume that he does not exist. An objection to this idea states that “does being real make something greater or better?” This is not obvious it does, which Challenges premise 5. However, existence does seem to make better. For example take a racecar; someone can create a racecar that is better than any other car. Nevertheless, not all things that exist are good; take tornados or childhood disease for example. Both of these things exist but they are not good things. Therefore saying that “Existence is perfect” Is not true because not everything that exists is
perfect.
There are people who have said they have encountered God today but without proof of their encounters people just call them crazy or say they have a mental illness. In Anselm’s argument, God appears to have necessary existence. Whether or not necessary existence is possible is another matter. Also, it could follow that using Anselm’s logic, you could conceive of anything at all coming into existence. One of the famous criticisms of the Ontological argument is from Gaunilo. He criticized Anselm by saying that using this logic, he could think about the most perfect conceivable Island, and that the one in reality would be more perfect than the one in the mind, therefore it must exist.
God’s existence can’t be explained because there is no proof of his existence. It can’t be explained because there’s no physical evidence because nobody has ever actually experienced Gods presence. If this definition is correct, God is perfect and greater than any other thing in existence. It is upon this definition that Anselm argues. A God that exists is greater than a non-existent one and therefore, God, who is by definition “perfect,” must exist. If God didn't exist he wouldn't be the greatest thing in existence and thus, wouldn't be God. In other words, Anselm is claiming that “existing” is a defining center of the subject "God". Seeing as God is perfect, he must exist because a non-existent God would be less than perfect and then, not God. Hence, the statement "God exists" is entirely logical and by characterization, God must exist.
500 years ago, if there was a drought, and people’s families were on life or death situations, people would pray to god. If it rained the next day, they would think that god was their savior but it is possible that it just rained. People, however, looked to God and his existence for guidance and help. In the 21st century, people still look to god for help and guidance. When applying to colleges, my family and I looked to god for help on getting accepted to Syracuse. I’m here now but it’s impossible to say if god helped or maybe I just worked hard and received rewards because of this. Another possible objection to the argument could be that people in pre historic times have encountered God. The Old Testament and the New Testament have records of God communicating to people, Moses and Jesus Christ. There are
Countless examples of God communicating to many more people in these old texts. To this day, we go to Church and Temple and we read these texts. It’s crazy to think about how these texts could be false. However, there is a good chance they are false. People during these times, were naïve and would listen to everyone. We, the human race, are smarter in today’s world. The development we have faced in the last 150 years explains more then 75% of the world’s big development. Big development can include huge advancements in transportation, infrastructure, and technology. This advancement could have happened in the time before Christ (BCE) but it didn’t. It didn’t because people weren’t as intelligent as we are now. We know now not to listen to everything we are told because people will say anything to gain power and wealth. This concept wasn’t as clearly seen in the times of before Christ. So to the people who would argue, that people have encountered God in the past are wrong. They are wrong because there is never any proof of these encounters except oral passing’s between people from over hundreds of years ago. In addition, before many religious texts were written, they were passed down orally for many years to many different people. Obviously, oral passing of religious stories and lessons/values shouldn’t have been passed down this way. The further they were passed down, the more and more the stories were altered. The Ontological Argument was, and still is, a hot topic for debate among philosophers around the world. Many famous philosophers have published criticisms of the theory including Immanuel Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas. This raises questions regarding whether or not this argument works. While there is no clear-cut answer to these questions, I personally believe that the negatives of this argument surpass the positives, thereby making it a weak argument. The first published criticism of Anselm's Ontological Argument was from Gaunilo in his book On Behalf of the Fool, like I previously stated. While Gaunilo was a firm believer in God and was a monk, he disagreed strongly with Anselm's method for proving his existence. Anselm claimed that a perfect God, must exist because an existent God is better than a non-existent God meaning that if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect and therefore, wouldn't be God. Overall, while the Ontological Argument is essentially a sound theory to some degree, the criticisms which highlight so many of the argument's weaknesses show how the theory is weaker than in it is strong.
P| 1. Definition: God is that being than which no greater being can be conceived.
P| 2. God exists in the mind (we think of God).
A| 3.Assume God exists only in the mind but not in reality (Atheism)
3 4. Then we can conceive of a being just like God but which also exists in reality.
P | 5. Existence is perfection. If two things are alike in all respects except the first exists in reality and the second does not, then the first is greater than the second. 4,5| 6. We can conceive of a being greater than God.
1,6| 7. We can conceive of a being greater than that being than which no greater being can be conceived (CONTRADICTION). …show more content…
RAA7 | 8. Thus we reject the (Atheist) assumption that God exists only in the mind but not in reality.
2,8 | 9. God exists in reality.
Assessing Traditional Arguments about Gods Existence: The Ontological Argument
As we go through our everyday lives, there are always questions we face that many times don’t have immediate answers.
People today and people 300 years ago have looked towards religion, and god specifically to answer the un-questionable. The Ontological Argument is a deductive argument that attempts to show that its premises lead to a logical conclusion, which can’t be doubted. Philosophers have attempted to show that the phrase “God Exists” is a logical statement in that it is logically impossible for it not to be the case, just as it is impossible for a bachelor to not be an unmarried man. The ontological argument proves gods existence because of its apriori …show more content…
proposition.
Anselm’s definition of God is crucial to this argument. Anselm had stated that “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” By this, he meant that it was impossible to think of anything greater than God and soundly, it must be better for this God to exist in reality and not just in the mind. Therefore, if we accept this definition, and Anselm felt that even Atheists would, we must logically conclude that the greatest possible being must exist in reality, otherwise there would be the possibility of something greater existing. Therefore, essentially God exists. Anselm’s second form of the argument focused on God’s “necessary existence.”
This is a valid argument because no one can prove this otherwise and it is a reducio.
To prove God exists, we assume that he does not exist. An objection to this idea states that “does being real make something greater or better?” This is not obvious it does, which Challenges premise 5. However, existence does seem to make better. For example take a racecar; someone can create a racecar that is better than any other car. Nevertheless, not all things that exist are good; take tornados or childhood disease for example. Both of these things exist but they are not good things. Therefore saying that “Existence is perfect” Is not true because not everything that exists is
perfect.
There are people who have said they have encountered God today but without proof of their encounters people just call them crazy or say they have a mental illness. In Anselm’s argument, God appears to have necessary existence. Whether or not necessary existence is possible is another matter. Also, it could follow that using Anselm’s logic, you could conceive of anything at all coming into existence. One of the famous criticisms of the Ontological argument is from Gaunilo. He criticized Anselm by saying that using this logic, he could think about the most perfect conceivable Island, and that the one in reality would be more perfect than the one in the mind, therefore it must exist.
God’s existence can’t be explained because there is no proof of his existence. It can’t be explained because there’s no physical evidence because nobody has ever actually experienced Gods presence. If this definition is correct, God is perfect and greater than any other thing in existence. It is upon this definition that Anselm argues. A God that exists is greater than a non-existent one and therefore, God, who is by definition “perfect,” must exist. If God didn't exist he wouldn't be the greatest thing in existence and thus, wouldn't be God. In other words, Anselm is claiming that “existing” is a defining center of the subject "God". Seeing as God is perfect, he must exist because a non-existent God would be less than perfect and then, not God. Hence, the statement "God exists" is entirely logical and by characterization, God must exist.
500 years ago, if there was a drought, and people’s families were on life or death situations, people would pray to god. If it rained the next day, they would think that god was their savior but it is possible that it just rained. People, however, looked to God and his existence for guidance and help. In the 21st century, people still look to god for help and guidance. When applying to colleges, my family and I looked to god for help on getting accepted to Syracuse. I’m here now but it’s impossible to say if god helped or maybe I just worked hard and received rewards because of this. Another possible objection to the argument could be that people in pre historic times have encountered God. The Old Testament and the New Testament have records of God communicating to people, Moses and Jesus Christ. There are
Countless examples of God communicating to many more people in these old texts. To this day, we go to Church and Temple and we read these texts. It’s crazy to think about how these texts could be false. However, there is a good chance they are false. People during these times, were naïve and would listen to everyone. We, the human race, are smarter in today’s world. The development we have faced in the last 150 years explains more then 75% of the world’s big development. Big development can include huge advancements in transportation, infrastructure, and technology. This advancement could have happened in the time before Christ (BCE) but it didn’t. It didn’t because people weren’t as intelligent as we are now. We know now not to listen to everything we are told because people will say anything to gain power and wealth. This concept wasn’t as clearly seen in the times of before Christ. So to the people who would argue, that people have encountered God in the past are wrong. They are wrong because there is never any proof of these encounters except oral passing’s between people from over hundreds of years ago. In addition, before many religious texts were written, they were passed down orally for many years to many different people. Obviously, oral passing of religious stories and lessons/values shouldn’t have been passed down this way. The further they were passed down, the more and more the stories were altered. The Ontological Argument was, and still is, a hot topic for debate among philosophers around the world. Many famous philosophers have published criticisms of the theory including Immanuel Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas. This raises questions regarding whether or not this argument works. While there is no clear-cut answer to these questions, I personally believe that the negatives of this argument surpass the positives, thereby making it a weak argument. The first published criticism of Anselm's Ontological Argument was from Gaunilo in his book On Behalf of the Fool, like I previously stated. While Gaunilo was a firm believer in God and was a monk, he disagreed strongly with Anselm's method for proving his existence. Anselm claimed that a perfect God, must exist because an existent God is better than a non-existent God meaning that if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be perfect and therefore, wouldn't be God. Overall, while the Ontological Argument is essentially a sound theory to some degree, the criticisms which highlight so many of the argument's weaknesses show how the theory is weaker than in it is strong.