The Argument On 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.

Ontological argument is an argument that is not based on inspection of the universe, but rather on rationality alone. This type of argument reasons from the study of being or existence (ontology).

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

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

The ontological argument can be stated in this way: “God is the greatest being imaginable. One of the aspects of perfection or greatness is existence. Thus, God exists.” Or put another way—“The fact that God can be conceived means that he must exist.”

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 :

The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which intends to prove that there is an intelligent being that exists; the being is distinct from the universe, explains the existence of the universe, and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The basic notion of cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence. It explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.

The ontological argument is an argument that God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived. Essentially, it must be assert that Anslem definition does not restrict God to being the greatest but makes it clear that there is nothing else that can be greater than God himself. So with this God should not be connected to terms such a omnipotent. With this definition Anslem will strive to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality. One way Anslem uses as an example is the fool to show his point on God’s existence. He declares when the fool says there is no God in Psalms, the fool must be able to understand what he hears. Accordingly, if the fool knows what God is, God must exist as it is difficult to know what something is if it does not exist. God exists in the understanding but not in the reality. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God (CITE…). A being greater than can be conceived. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived by definition of “God”. Hence it is false

The nature of this question is pointing towards ontological arguments, these arguments claim that understanding God’s definition to be true can prove His existence. The proof used is a priori and this means that the propositions do no not require sense experience to be understood as true. The name ontological is taken from two Greek words, ‘ontos’ (being) and ‘logos’ (study of) which shows that the argument is concerned with the nature of God, and it is from His nature that His existence is argued for. In Proslogian, Anselm put forward his version of an ontological argument and his argument looks at having a definition for God that any person can believe, both the fool and the believer. I am going to argue against his argument as looking

However, there are many reasons that the ontological argument can be deemed invalid. It equivocates between different frames of reference. "Nothing greater that can be thought" is not the same as "nothing greater than can exist." This argument only really shows that the greatest thing to exist in reality will always be "greater" than its imaginary counterpart, which is not true as anything that exists in reality is more susceptible to flaws, but a

The Ontological argument is an a priori deductive argument. That is, an argument relating to being, that is independent of prior knowledge of the subject and with a conclusion you must accept IF one accepts the preceding premises. St. Anselm of Canterbury presents the Ontological

I begin with the constructs of Anselm. The ontological, or a priori, argument was first expressed in 1070 by Anselm. He argued that because we have a notion of an all-perfect being "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" – It must be God. Anselm regarded God as a being one who enjoys all conceivable perfection. Yet if God "existed" only as an idea in our awareness, then God would be less perfect than if He in fact existed. Therefore God had to be greater than what our finite minds have ability to conceive so as not to contradict the definition of God.

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.

I believe that that the Cosmological argument gives good reason to believe in the existence of God. The Cosmological argument focuses on everything having a cause except one thing that started it all, this starter is known as the “Prime Mover”. The Prime Mover is the one that starts everything without anything having a previous effect on it. With that people have assumed that the logical answer to who the prime mover is, is God. This to me seems the most logical of arguments because although there is the idea of eternity and an eternal cycle there has to be a starting point. I do not believe the argument is successful.

The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is