Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God
I) Examine the ways in which the Ontological argument attempts to prove to the atheist that God exists.
There are many different forms of the ontological argument for the existence of God. The first being an argument postulated by Anselm in the Proslogian. The ontological argument is a priori meaning knowledge is independent of experience an analytical meaning from logic.
The Ontological argument follows the analytic method of knowledge; in this instance, for example, this is to be found when Anselm reaches the conclusion of God by analysing God himself.
The argument starts from the Anselm’s definition ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. If something is completely perfect, then it cannot possibly be better than it is; …show more content…
The premises go as follows:
1. It is a conceptual truth that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined God exists as an idea in the mind.
2. 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.
3. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
5. Therefore, God exists.
Anselm quotes at the beginning of Psalm 52: ‘the fool in his heart has said that there is no God’. Anselm asserts that the atheist is the fool. Furthermore Anselm argues that in order for the atheist to deny the existence of God, he has the idea of God ‘in his mind’. People worldwide atheist and theist all can imagine what God is; a supreme being above …show more content…
When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possess the property of existence. If that were the case then when people assert that God doesn’t exist they would merely be saying that there is a God and he lacks the ‘property’ of existence. If Kant is correct in the view that existence is not a property of objects, then it is not possible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not exist. On Kant’s view a God that exists and a God that does not are qualitatively identical. For example a God that exists is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. A God that does not exist is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Both are the same. If this is right, then Anselm’s claim that an existent God is greater than a non-existent God is false, neither is greater than the other, In which case the ontological argument fails as proof for the existence of God and therefore gives support to atheism.
The definition ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, although true for many believers, is not the case for all: In this case the atheist could argue that If we can describe God in any other way or from a more strictly atheist perspective reject Anselm’s definition all together, then the argument fails. Furthermore, Anselm treats existence as an analytic term; however, statements about existence are synthetic, since existence
There are many different forms of the ontological argument for the existence of God. The first being an argument postulated by Anselm in the Proslogian. The ontological argument is a priori meaning knowledge is independent of experience an analytical meaning from logic.
The Ontological argument follows the analytic method of knowledge; in this instance, for example, this is to be found when Anselm reaches the conclusion of God by analysing God himself.
The argument starts from the Anselm’s definition ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. If something is completely perfect, then it cannot possibly be better than it is; …show more content…
The premises go as follows:
1. It is a conceptual truth that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined God exists as an idea in the mind.
2. 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.
3. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
5. Therefore, God exists.
Anselm quotes at the beginning of Psalm 52: ‘the fool in his heart has said that there is no God’. Anselm asserts that the atheist is the fool. Furthermore Anselm argues that in order for the atheist to deny the existence of God, he has the idea of God ‘in his mind’. People worldwide atheist and theist all can imagine what God is; a supreme being above …show more content…
When people assert that God exists they are not saying that there is a God and he possess the property of existence. If that were the case then when people assert that God doesn’t exist they would merely be saying that there is a God and he lacks the ‘property’ of existence. If Kant is correct in the view that existence is not a property of objects, then it is not possible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not exist. On Kant’s view a God that exists and a God that does not are qualitatively identical. For example a God that exists is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. A God that does not exist is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Both are the same. If this is right, then Anselm’s claim that an existent God is greater than a non-existent God is false, neither is greater than the other, In which case the ontological argument fails as proof for the existence of God and therefore gives support to atheism.
The definition ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, although true for many believers, is not the case for all: In this case the atheist could argue that If we can describe God in any other way or from a more strictly atheist perspective reject Anselm’s definition all together, then the argument fails. Furthermore, Anselm treats existence as an analytic term; however, statements about existence are synthetic, since existence