The Ontological Argument

308). Hence, it is just as much of a contradiction to think of God (that is, a supremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lacking perfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley. His theory is that he can’t think of God without it existing and therefore it exists.

The Ontological Argument In Anselm's ontological argument he is trying to prove the existence of God, his argument is an argument purely based on the mind and does not require the moral agent to venture into the real of the senses. Ontology is to do with being, or what something is. Anselm's ontological argument concerns existence and whether it is an attribute of God in the same way omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are believed to be. The argument is an a priori argument. It does not rest on proving God's existence by relying on experimental knowledge but on showing that God must exist logically, or that God's non-existence is illogical.

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.

There are three arguments for the existence of god the ontological, cosmological and religious experience. Ontological argument is for God is based on the ideas about nature of being, existence and reality. This argument is based entirely on reason. You shouldn’t have to go out and looking for physical evidence that God existence we can work out that God exists just by thinking about it. According to this argument God is perfection. God is all-powerful and something can’t be called God unless it is perfect.

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.”

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’

Arguments for God are quite extensive, having taken many different forms throughout history and Anselm’s Ontological argument stands as one of the most famous. Anselm’s argument begins with the concept of God and, by using only a priori principles, attempts to establish the existence of God. His specific Argument goes as follows: That than which nothing greater can be conceived (God) exists in understanding, things are greater in reality than in understanding, therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality. Anselm’s argument fails in two ways Anselm falsely assumes that the God he proves, to exist, is supremely unique and the second assumption that existence is a quality that things can possess.

This argument is subject to a simple objection, introduced by asking, “Does God have a cause of his existence?”If, on the one hand, God is thought to have a cause of his existence, then positing the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn’t get us anywhere. Without God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely the universe; with God there is one entity the existence of which we cannot explain, namely God. Positing the existence of God, then, raises as many problems as it solves, and so the cosmological argument leaves us in no better position than it found us, with one entity the existence of which we cannot explain. If, on the other hand, God is thought not to have a cause of his existence, i.e. if God is thought to be an uncaused being, then this too raises difficulties for the simple cosmological argument. For if God were an uncaused being then his existence would

Within Part 9 of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), Hume has the character of Demea present an Ontological Argument for the existence of God. Demea attempts to argue that God’s existence can be proven wholly a priori and logically, rather than through the a posteriori design argument. A priori arguments say that if the reasoning is valid then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, which Demea argues is the case when it comes to the existence of god. The following essay will discuss Demea 's standing, Cleanthes’ responses and what this all means for both the theory and Hume 's own opinion.

The ontological argument is a debate for God’s existence established absolutely on reason. According to this disagreement, there is no need to go out looking for physical confirmation of God’s presence; If we just believe we will be able to realize that he does absolutely exist.

To start this off I would like to address and share a fact, just about every single culture has a religion, granted there are some atheists that believe in nothing. However if you really think about it that is stills a religion because they believe in nothing, the keyword here is believe. Everybody believes in something whether they believe in nothing such as the atheist, or something such as Christians. Some people in other cultures believe in all kinds of stuff, for example some people believe that the sun is a god, some religions believe in many gods, even thousands. The point I am trying to make here is that everybody believes in something.

The ontological argument is one of the most prominent arguments with in philosophy. Ontological comes from the Greek word “ontos” meaning “being” or “what there is”. Ontology credits the existence of God to overall essence of God. The ontology argument questions the nature of being which includes questioning the existence of God. As made apparent in “Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings” many philosophers have different views and theories on the existence of God. Anslem and Aquinas provide arguments that support the existence of God but still offer some differences.

A standout amongst the most interesting contentions for the presence of an all-impeccable God is the ontological contention. While there are a few distinct renditions of the contention, all indicate to demonstrate that it is self-conflicting to deny that there exists a biggest conceivable being. In this way, on this general line of contention, it is an essential truth that such a being exists; and this being is the Divine force of conventional Western belief in higher powers. This article clarifies and assesses great and contemporary forms of the ontological contention.

As soon as a person has admitted that he/she has a concept of "God", by this argument, then that person has also admitted God's existence (in the same way that admitting you have the concept of a triangle is, is to admit that a triangle has three angles).

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.