The Ontological Argument Essay

The ontological argument was an argument created by Saint Anselm. Anselm argued that if we thought about what God is and what he can do then we know he must exist. What Anselm means by this is that if our minds can think of something so great like God, we should realize that an all-powerful God must exist in reality. Anselm states that God is, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This quote means if we can comprehend who God is, then there has to be a more powerful God than in our minds, in reality because if God is such a perfect being, then this implies that he must be by definition as well.

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

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.

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?

Anselm's Ontological Argument has five parts to explain why someone should believe in god. None of the have any concreteness to them. There is nothing to make someone believe who

In his ontological argument, St. Anselm aims to “refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God” . This ‘fool’ has two important features: 1) he understands the claims that God exists and 2) he does not believe that God exists. Anselm works to show that this combination of features is unstable. Therefore, in his ontological argument, Anselm argues the following: 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 imagine; therefore: 3) there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined, 4) if God does not exists then there is something greater than God that can be imagined; therefore: 5) God exists . In this paper,

I will begin my paper by discussing the two major versions of the ontological argument by Anselm presented in the proslogion. The first being “Possible and actual existence”, and the second being “Contingent or Necessary”. One should start off with the first summarized in the standard form as follows: #1 It is a conceptual truth that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. #2 God exists as an idea in the mind. #3 A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. #4 Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God. #5 But we cannot imagine something that is greater than

Therefore, the conclusion that God does not exist must be false. Anselm then believes that the opposite of this supposition must then be true. A perfect God must actually must exist in reality.

This conclusion can be demonstrated, not with Gaunilo's island argument, but through a basic question: what if Anselm's fundamental premise -- the definition of God as the that beyond which nothing greater can be conceived -- is false? This question is not asking if the definition of God is inaccurate, which leaves the way clear for Anselm's response to Gaunilo. Instead, the question is keyed to the possibility that God may, indeed, not exist. While the author of this paper denies the question as ultimately untrue (i.e., God does exist), it is a valid one to ask in just this type of a discussion. Anselm's argument requires an initial assumption of God as existing in some state -- at least in the mind. The idea that the thought of God's existence

St. Anselm Ontological argument is known to be the most popular Ontological argument however, it is also known to be the most confusing of them all. When defining God Anselm stated "a being than which nothing greater can be thought." By saying this Anselm makes a very strong claim that

My view is that Anselm ontological argument for the existence for God is a sound argument. I believe this to be true because Anselm simply wished to prove the existence of God by using logic and reason instead of imperial evidence. Instead of using physical evidence this argument uses priori proof of Gods existences. Priori proof essentially meaning knowledge gained through deduction without the use of empirical evidence. While using simple deduction he defined God as “something than which nothing greater can be thought.” Also he believed that everybody regardless if they believe in God or not would agree with the definition (even the fool in the Psalms: 53:1 who claims he doesn’t believe

Anselm says that God cannot be thought not to exist. This may be because as people grow into adulthood, they are taught that God exist, even a non-believer has considered the existence of God. God is so pure and so true that an idea of a something that created everything could not not exist. What does something so true mean? Anselm says, “So that than which a greater can not be thought exists so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist.” Anselm is referring to God in the same way that Aquinas refers to God in his fourth reason, gradation. Aquinas says, “Among beings there are some more and some less good…. therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.” He refers to the gradation of things. Some of us have more

Ontological argument is based on mind and analysing the concept of God (2/3 however, cosmological argument is about causation and observation of the world. According to this argument’s believers everything that came to the world should have a cause that bring it to exist and that thing is God (davise 75). This essay will explain the ontological argument about existence of God from the Anselm and Descartes’s point of view as two of the most important supporters of this argument. This essay will also explain that this argument is a valid and sound argument. Ontological argument is a priori argument, which means unlike a posteriori arguments such as the cosmological argument about existence of God; it does not need any experimental evidence or the world observation to

Anslem is a philosopher who used the ontological way of thinking to explain God's existence. The ontological thought process shows the existence and being of a thing. Anselm's argument is that God is "this being that so truly exists that it cannot be even thought not to exist" (p. 860). The thoughts and ideas that are in your mind correspond to what exists. However, if you think about things that don't exist it is not as good. The things that exist are real and God's creation, and to

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