An Argument On An Ontological Argument Essay

Most people have not witnessed or experienced God and therefore are confused about its existence. In Western theology, three theories have emerged to demonstrate the existence of God. These theories are the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. St. Anselm of eleventh century, and Descartes of seventeenth century, have used the ontological argument for proving the existence of God. The God, for them, is supreme, "needing nothing outside himself, but needful for the being and well-being of all things." (Pg. 305).

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality.

Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existence, for perfection cannot merely exist as a mental phenomenon. God is, according to Anselm, self-evident in the mind. Criticisms to this argument can be found in Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo, who argues that such an argument can be used to - put

This argument for God’s existence was developed by the twelfth century theologian and philosopher, Anselm. It is based on Anselm’s declaration that God is “that which nothing greater can be conceived.”

In Proslogion, Anselm argues God’s existence using what has come to be known as the ontological argument. Using the ontological argument, Anselm disproves “the fools” belief that there is no God. However, Anselm does not give enough backing to his arguments. This is particularly true in the fourth point, that it is conceivable that God exists in reality. Although I agree with Anselm, he gives no evidence to support why it is conceivable that God truly exists in reality. Anselm immediately goes from saying how it means more if something exists in reality and understanding than just in the understanding to immediately saying that the fool can conceive that God exists in reality. The

In Chapter 2 of Anselm's Proslogian, Anselm offers what was later to be characterized as his Ontological Argument, which is an argument for God's existence he felt was so strong that even a fool as is said in Psalms 14:1- "who has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". Anselm's argument is as follows :

Throughout Proslogion Anselm defends his argument that “God is which nothing greater can be thought” by providing key elements. Anselm proposes that one cannot imagine a god that is greater, and even non-believers have a conception of the western god. Anselm asserts that since everyone has an understanding of god in their mind, then god exist in reality. This paper will evaluate some of the main key elements that Anselm uses to prove that the ontological argument is correct in Proslogion. I contend that Anselm does not exhibit proper terminology and provides vague statements and therefore his argument that “God is which nothing greater can be thought” is invalid.

As can be seen from the previous paragraph, Anselm was a very influential Christian thinker of his time. In that time, Anselm committed himself to his Ontological Argument. His main goal was to ground Christian

God is a being too great to be contained as an understanding within the human mind without existing in reality, which would make him less great to humanity. Anselm argues this when he presents his version of the ontological argument, which addresses the existence of god. He claims, “when th[e] [atheist] hears my words ‘something than which nothing greater cn be thought’ he understands what he hears. And what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand [i.e., judge] it to exist. For that a thing is in the understanding is distinct from understanding that [this] thing exists” (Anselm 554-555). In order to be a great being, Anselm argues that if a person understands god within their thoughts, then god must exist in reality if he can exist within the mind. To support this, Anselm provides one example of the argument, using a painter as the object of it. He explains that when a painter pictures what he is going to paint, he has the understanding of his painting, although it has not

The ontological argument was first developed by St. Anselm. In his address, Anselm considered the Fool of Psalm 14, who held the belief that there is no God. He justified that the Fool’s argument was indeed self-undermining. In the ontological argument, Anselm argued that denying that God exists shows that God does exist. He labeled God as a unique perfect being; all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. In his argument, Anselm draws the distinction between “existing in the mind” and “existing in reality”. The example provided was when a person intends on doing something, it exist in the mind; whereas when a person has actually done something, it exist in reality. However, there are many things that exist only in reality such as the example

Anselm's ontological argument is a philosophical argument which aims to prove God's existence. The ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence based on reason alone. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God’s existence; we can work out that he exists simply by thinking about it logically. (Anon., 2004) Anselm’s argument is a reductio argument, it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that an absurd result would follow from its denial. I will be discussing three objections to Anselm’s argument which I will reply to, namely: ‘the perfect island’ objection by Gaunilo; ‘existence is not a predicate’

can possibly think of. When Anselm states this, it essentially means that it is not possible to think of a being greater than God. Anselm also states that if God is the greatest thinkable being, he is referring to the fact that it would be impossible to imagine or to create in ones mind someone or something being better than God. Therefore, it would be impossible to say that God only exists in ones mind because it is much greater to exist in reality than it is to exist only in ones mind. Anselm then suggests that God has many attributes which describe him. Among these being: self-existent, a necessary being, omnipotent, omniscient,

Continuing off this idea of God being the greatest idea that can be thought, and how the thought of God is in everybody 's mind, Anselm mentions “ If that- than-which- a-greater-cannot -be-thought exists in the mind alone, this is the same than that- which- a- greater- can- be- thought is than that-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that- than-which- a-greater-cannot -be-thought exists in both the mind and reality” (Anselm 88). This proof that is given to us by Anselm is helping to show that God is something that is an idea in everybody 's mind, but existing only in the mind is not enough. As said before Anselm states that no one can think of anything greater than God, but if God was something that was only an idea in people 's’ heads then there would be ways for people to think of things greater than God. Though if God existed outside of someone 's mind, in reality, then it would be impossible for anyone to think of anything bigger than God and because God is something in which nothing greater can be thought, he must exist in both the mind and reality.

Anselm in this case defines God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm 30). Ontological arguments tend to be a priori, which is an argument that utilizes thoughts as opposed to empirical evidence to prove validity. Anselm addresses the Atheist fool in an attempt to disprove him “since the fool has said in his heart, There is no God?”(Anselm, 30). Anselm stressed that it is obligatory to recognize God as a perfect being that cannot be improved upon, and if someone understands the concept of God, then God exists in that person’s understanding. It is greater to exist in reality than just simply the understanding. The fool understands the concept of God. Therefore the fool has God in his understanding. Suppose God exists only in the understanding of the fool and not in reality. We could then think of something exactly as it existed in the fools understanding but it can also exist in reality, and the being we conceived of would be greater than the being that exists in the fools understanding. Therefore God exists not only in the understanding of the fool but also in reality. By showing that God exists in reality as well as in the understanding, we see that it is imperative that we should believe in God and that it is indeed reasonable.