Ontological Argument

of such arguments is that of St. Anselm from Proslogium of St. Anselm, which states that God is

Hinduism is faced with a revolving wheel of life, death and rebirth called Samsara better known as reincarnation. They believe this life cycle is a direct relation to a person’s karma of deeds done. Karma “determines the kind of body, whether human, animal, or insect, into which he or she will be reincarnated in the next

Than there has to be something that already existed to make everything exist and for that to happen that had to be someone, so that is God. Aquinas also pointed one in one of his earlier proofs of the First Mover. Aquinas says that anything moved is moved by another, so there must be a first mover (a mover that is not itself moved by another) and that first mover is God. Both of the philosophers used great methods to come to their conclusion about how god came into existence. They both used different thinking methods to get to their well respected arguments but did come to the conclusion that God does “exist”. I believe the key difference about the two philosophers was the time difference between the philosophers, Thomas Aquinas wrote his proofs in the medieval ages around the 1200’s while ( with no disrespect) Rene Descartes wrote his meditation in the 1600’s. There is a big 400 year gap between ideas are compared but that came down to the same conclusion

To apprehend God is akin to apprehending truths of mathematical nature; they are found within the contents of the mind and are ontologically and logically true. Further, mathematical truths have ‘essences’ which necessitate their existence; for example, the fact of three angles equalling two right angles is essential to the existence of the triangle. It is what makes the existing thing what it is. As for the idea of God, Descartes writes, “existence can no more be separated from the essence of God.”. Because God is defined as perfect, it then follows that God must therefore exist, as existence is itself a perfection. In other words, perfection is existence, and to not exist would be less than perfect; therefore, the ontological argument argues for necessity of God’s existence by virtue of his perfect essence.

1. What should Rani Pharmaceuticals do? Rani Pharmaceuticals should act in the best interest of their loyal customers as well as their own. By sending out the next quarterly newsletter with additional information on the Soothing Waters Hot Tubs and Spas, and allow the consumers to decide if they would like to receive further more information.

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

Anselm believed in a perfect being theology, and support for premise one resides within Anselm's Principle of God's Necessary Perfection (Marenbon 121). A being 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' is by definition the greatest being, or most perfect being, possible. He uses the idea that 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' exists in someone's mind as a starting point, and seeks to build upon this foundation to show that God necessarily exists in reality as well. If it could not be conceived in one's understanding, then as far as this argument is concerned, it couldn't be shown to exist in reality as well.

Anselm’s Ontological argument sets out to not only prove God’s existence, but to show that God’s existence is self-evident. Similar to other ontological arguments, it uses a priori knowledge to argue its validity, meaning that the propositions made are derived from internal reasoning instead of sense experience.

In my opinion, a lot of people in foreign countries are uneducated and therefore, may not fully understand the risks, complications and side effects of these experimental drugs. If they do not have the means to adequately research the drug prior to testing it, they may end up doing so without fully understanding what potential side effects are involved. I am not sure how well companies educate these foreign countries and or people involved in the case study. If these people are not educated properly than it is unethical for them to test experimental drugs on them.

For this picture, before it was, made it was contained in the artificer's art itself; and any such thing, existing in the art of an artificer, is another, but a part of his understanding itself. " Guanilo's criticizes Anselm argument by calling him a fool. Guanilo's criticizes Anselm speech that talks about how he is seeking and understands God, but still does not fully recognizing God's existence. The strength of Guanilo's argument was him saying the not yet created picture in the mind of the painter should not be a comparison to God's existence for it is not the same. Some would agree the strength of Guanilo's argument is when he says, "I still answer: if it should be said that a being which cannot be even conceived in terms of any fact, is in the understanding, I do not deny that this being is, accordingly, in my understanding.

Gaunilo criticizes against Anselm’s view on how to confirm the existence of God using the same method in a form of reductio ad absurdum. In this case the example of a perfect island is utilized. One may dream or

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

Gaunilo thought this claim was ridiculous and that this deductive so called logic did not prove anything. That doesn’t mean Gaunilo doesn’t believe in God but only that Anselm is incorrect. Gaunilo debated Anslem’s views stating that existence does not make something perfect (Roca

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

Karma is the connotation of causality that past actions influence future events. This is the same for both Buddhism and Hinduism. Both also believe in an endless cycle of births known as endless cycle of births, known as samsara. and release from this cycle of rebirths.