Advantages Of The Ontological Argument

I was exposed to religion as a child but it didn’t really truly connect with me at first. I have grown up catholic because that is the way my family preaches. I was taught to know to always go to church on Sunday’s and holy days of obligation, if you sin deeply you need to go to confess and the list goes on. Although, as I got older I began the true meaning of God being the greatest being and I started to have my very own religious experiences which raised a lot of questions in me. This now brings me to the argument that I’m going to talk about, The ontological argument.

Some of the three major arguments for the existence of God are cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments. Cosmological argument is the reasoning that the being of the universe is powerful proof for the existence of a God who made it. There are two main forms of cosmological argument, the modal and temporal. Modal cosmological argument, also known as the argument from contingency, recommends that because the world may not have existed, we then need some clarification of why it does exist. When there is more than one likelihood, something has to decide which of the possibilities is understood clearly. Therefore the world is contingent, because there has to be a logical reason for its existence. This form of argument also claims that the only type of existence that doesn’t need any clarification is a being that does not failed to exist such as God. Temporal cosmological argument, also known as the Kalam argument, contends that all evidence are that there is a point in life at which the world began to exist, and that this starting must either have been caused or uncaused. The cosmological argument used by Aquinas declares that since nothing originates from nothing. Therefore the world must have been brought into reality by something outside it, which can be called "God".

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

The Main Points of Anselm's ontological argument (1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived. (2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined. Therefore: (3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined. (4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.

If He did not exist, then you could still think of an even greater being (one just like God that you said did not exist, except this one would exist). Existence must be one of God's attributes because to remove it, you would still be able to fathom a greater God (one which does exist). The problem most have with this argument is that it seems to simply list existence among God's attributes, rather than show it. The argument appears to say whatever you can imagine should be true in reality.

The ontological argument relies on reasoning to formulate the undoubtable certainty that God exists. This type of argument does not rely on empirical aspects, but abstract reasoning. A prime example

The ontological argument for God’s existence is a work of art resulting from philosophical argumentation. An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone. The term a priori refers to deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the type of reasoning that proceeds from general principles or premises to derive particular information. The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God then God exists. However, this type of argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy. The bare assertion fallacy is fallacy in formal logic where a premise

The ontological argument has been very controversial. Even many who believe in God’s existence question its validity. A contemporary of Anselm named Guanilo responded to Anselm. Guanilo said that one could imagine a perfect island but that did not mean a perfect island exists. Others have said you can imagine a unicorn but that does not mean unicorns exist. Thus, many challenge the idea that

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 :

Anselm’s ontological argument is historically important because it was among the first arguments for proving the existence of God. His argument had a considerable influence on the populace at the time and received both praise and criticism. His argument also led to the development of counterarguments and other theories for God’s existence or non-existence from other philosophers. Anselm’s ontological argument is still relevant today because it allows us to have a glimpse into the mindset of one of history’s most influential philosophers, and it allows us to develop our own arguments from that.

This concept of God’s existence is also led with the idea that God is a necessary being, a being that is not dependent of something greater in order to exist. If God relied on another being, like how a children rely on parents to conceive them, then this being called God is not God because it would be imperfect. Therefore, there must be another to call God that meets all the requirements for perfection. One of the first popular objections was created by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. The premise and conclusion to Gaunilo’s argument is identical to Anselm’s argument except with the replacement of the word “God” with “the Lost island” and the word “being” with “island”. As simple as that, though Gaunilo’s argument is completely absurd, Gaunilo’s reductio ad absurdum also proves to be as deductively valid as Anselm’s argument. However, this “Lost Island” could in no way exist. The absurdity and validity of “the lost island” quickly brought up questions as to how Anselm’s Argument cannot be absurd. Anselm’s argument was not proven invalid until Immanuel Kant, a german philosopher during the 18th century, proposed an objection that would be the decisive blow to the Ontological argument (Immanuel Kant. Wiki). Kant’s

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

The philosophical arguments presented in this document are not of religious text, nor scientific observation or established fact. Rather the premise of this God proof is bring together and share the various theories on which other God proofs have established foundations. I have heard it quoted that “Philosophy goes where hard science can 't, or won 't. Philosophers have a license to.” Therefore, with this in mind, I attest that it is more than problematic to construct an argument authenticating the unequivocal proof of the existence God. If nothing else this may be food for thought.

The existence of God has been in question for as long as mankind has existed and thought logically. Many questions have plagued the human mind in regards to God, and there have been many arguments drawn with the hopes of proving the existence of a supreme being whom we know as God. The “God” question has been presented to every individual at some point in their lives. It is a topic that will bring forth never-ending questions and an equal amount of attempted answers. Many philosophers have formulated different rationales when examining the topic of God, some of which include how the word itself should be defined, what his role is in human existence, whether or not he loves us, and ultimately, if he even exists at all. Mankind cannot

The defenders of the ontological argument have a comeback though. They say that the person who rejects the existence of God has not grasped the concept of God correctly because existence is part of the concept of God. In conclusion, the person does not understand what he is denying. But Kant comes back with an even stronger argument. As we already know, existence is not a first order property, it just says that something is actually there. In Kant's own words, "'Being' is obviously not a real predicate: that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves." Kant's argument makes perfect sense. Let us use a triangle to prove his point. Say that right now I have the concept of a triangle in my head. A triangle is a geometrical figure with three angles. Under the condition that I have the concept of the triangle in my head, it necessarily follows that I must have the idea