Exploring the Ontological Argument

- St. Thomas Aquina interpreted Aristotelian philosophy from a Christian perspective. Aquina also gave five proofs for God’s existence; motion, efficient cause, possibility and necessity, degrees of perfection and design. The first way was natural things are in motion. If something is in motion, then it must be set into motion by something outside of itself. There

In support he writes that it is not a problem of understanding the concept of a being in which nothing greater can be thought, but instead the problem lies with accepting whether or not the being exists in reality as well as imagination (Feinberg 30). For example, when brainstorming at the start of writing an essay the ideas exist in one’s personal imagination, but they do not exist in reality until the ideas are drafted and then made complete with the writing of the essay. In other words, the idea of the existence of God is first in the understanding that an all-powerful

Of the three theistic arguments presented by the text, I find the “design”, or the teleological argument to be the most persuasive because unlike the other two arguments (ontological and first cause), the argument’s premises can be supported through observations of the physical world. The ontological and first cause argument are both more based in pure logic and reasoning, and they also can both be easily challenged for the same reason. On the other hand, the design argument focuses less on how the existence of God could be explained in the terms of a “catalyst”, and more how there is a statistically improbable amount of order in our universe (called Maximally Orderly Huge Universe”). Put simply, the design argument states that since there

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

Strengths of the ontological argument, prima facie, are rather superficial and do not withstand objection if the argument is further probed and examined. Therefore, I do not see much strength in the argument itself, but in Descartes’ formulation of it. Firstly, of the few strengths that are initially brought to mind, the argument employs succinct propositions and does not rely upon evidence

The next point Anselm makes is that God existing in reality as well as understanding is greater than just understanding alone. Anselm then follows that with his next point: that it can be thought that God can exist in reality. “So even the fool must admit that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood exists in the understanding. And surely that then which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater” (Proslogion Chapter 2). The first point is self-explanatory. Proving God exists would be much easier if God existed in reality and understanding compared to understanding alone. Similarly, proving a cyclops existed would be much easier if you saw, captured, and defined it as a cyclops than just being able to define a cyclops. It is a reasonable assertion.

The argument begins with Anselm defining the term God as “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived” (pg.26). Although simple, once this term is accepted Anselm believes he has successfully proven the existence of God. This becomes clearer with further analysis. If God is a being that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, it naturally follows that God would possess all properties of greatness. An example of this would be omnipotence. Omnipotence would be such a property because it is greater to have ultimate power than to have limited power, therefore, God being the greatest conceivable being would possess the property of omnipotence. Likewise, it is greater for something to exist in both reality and the mind, than to exist only in the mind. Thus, just as omnipotence was ascribed to God so must the property of existence, for if God did not exist, he would be lacking a great making property, and consequently would be only a great being, but not the greatest conceivable being.

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.

Anselm now notices that there is a contradiction between his definition of God, and the assumption that God does not exist. If his definition of God demands absolute, unlimited greatness, then a God who does not exist in realty could be said to be inferior to a God that does indeed exist in reality. In our imagining of a God that exists both in our understanding and in reality, we are imagining a being of which its greatness supersedes our first conception of a non-existing God. Thus, according to Anselm’s argument, our previous assumption that God does not exist in reality must in fact be false. Therefore Anselm concludes that God must exist in reality, because if this was not the case, we would be imagining a being greater than the greatest possible being we could imagine – a contradiction no less. So where do the weaknesses in the Ontological argument lie?

The argument of whether God does or doesn’t exist has been a popular philosophical topic and everyday topic around the world for many centuries. It is a very important concept that philosophers have been trying to grasp since the beginning of philosophy. Anselm and Hume both have arguments that give us reasons to believe whether God exists or doesn’t exist. In this paper, I will venture into Anselm’s ontological argument, Hume’s contra-ontological argument, and objections to both of these arguments.

In the following essay I will be explaining Gaunilo’s objection to Anslem’s ontological argument. In the introduction of the second chapter of the ontological argument, Anslem begins his argument by introducing a psalmist’s “the fool”. With the following “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’?” (Anslem page 81), giving one the thought to conclude that he is denying the existence of God in other words. In the following paragraph he states “But when this same fool hears me say ‘something than which nothing greater can be thought’ he surely understands what he hears” (Anslem 82), here one gets the understanding that even the “fool” understands the concept of God being conceivable because he was told so and this being

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

St. Anselm begins his argument by saying that God is the one that grant the ability of understanding to faith, in which an understanding insofar that has been very beneficial to him. He added that an understanding which he believes God is in fact what he believes to be. Thus, with that understanding leads to the rationale of the notion of something greater to be thought exist is an unconscionable. Anselm’s argument stresses the perspectives which to purport by presenting to those who deny the existence of God as the greatest being is self-contradictory. Therefore, the point of his argument, it is essentially crucial to realized that such a being exist. The “ontological argument by St. Anselm “is the most compelling and fascinating argument

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.