Читать реферат по английскому: "Onthological Argument Essay Research Paper The Ontological" Страница 1

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

Onthological Argument Essay, Research Paper

The Ontological Argument

(a) Give an account of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God?

The Ontological argument is a group of different philosophers arguments for the existence of God. “Ontological” literally means talking about being and so in this case, that being is the existence or being of God. The main component of the Ontological argument can be found in the Anselm s “Proslogion” which is a short work that tries to demonstrate both the existence and the nature of God. His main aim in writing the Proslogion is not to directly prove the existence of God but to moreover, to show the relationship between faith and reason. Anselm wanted to understand the object of the belief. He is also not trying to defend his belief against the atheist and neither is he trying to convince the atheist that God exists. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of God as it is an a priori deductive argument, a priori meaning that can come to a conclusion by the use of reason and not proof. A deductive argument means that if the premises that are put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used.

Anselm s first form of the argument is that God is “that than which none greater can be conceived”. Firstly, it must be emphasised that Anselm s definition does not limit God to being the “greatest” but makes it known that nothing greater can be thought than God himself. Therefore, God should not in any way be linked to terms such as omnipotent as terminology such as this limit him to what he really is. With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality. Anselm uses the example of “the fool” to prove his point on God s existence. He says that when “the fool” says that “There is no God” in Psalms, he must therefore understand what he hears , and what he understands in his intellect by the term “God”. Therefore, if he knows what God is, God must exist as it is impossible to know what something is if it does not exist.

In chapter three in the Proslogion , Anselm contributes his second form to the argument. This form of the argument is that of necessary existence . He says that “that than which can be thought not to exist is not as great as that which cannot be thought not to exist.” Therefore, to say that God can be thought not to exist if the definition of God is “that than which none greater can be conceived” contradicts the previous statement and this indicates that God necessarily exists.

(b) Examine the responses of various scholars to this argument

Various philosophers did question Anselm s argument in favour of the existence of God. One of these philosophers was Gaunilon, Anselm s contemporary who argued against Anselm s first form of his argument. Gaunilon said that Anselm s sense and reasoning would bring about a ridiculous conclusion if it was applied to any other field other than the existence of God. He attempts to set up an argument which is parallel to Anselm s ontological argument by using the example of a perfect island. Gaunilon using the idea of this perfect island came to the conclusion that for it to be a perfect island, it must exist both in mind and reality. This conclusion is ridiculous. Therefore, Anselm argued back at Guanilon by saying that that “the most perfect island” is part of the “contingent world” so cannot endure the same reasoning as is used for the most “perfect conceivable being”. This indicates that Anselm is justifying why his principle does not apply to the “perfect island” example and he seems to be highlighting the importance of the idea of his second form of the argument which is that of “necessary existence” He is stressing the point that God is unique and that the reasoning of the ontological argument applies only to the most conceivable perfect being which has necessary existence.

Descartes moderated the ontological argument and said that “a supremely perfect being” must exist as existence is a defining predicate. He attempts to prove this concept by trying to portray it by using an example of a triangle. He says that “existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than the fact that its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of the triangle”. Descartes is basically saying that by definition, a triangle must have three angles and in the same way, he is saying that that existence must be a predicate that is included in the defining qualities that God holds.

The Cartesian version of the ontological argument was then challenged by Immanuel Kant. Kant completely disagreed with the concept that existence as a predicate, however he momentary let this pass and accepted the fact that existence is a predicate in order to prove another point. Kant disputes Descartes theory that God exists on the basis that “it does not follow that the subjects combined with their predicates exist because the subjects are linked to their predicates.” Therefore, he says that if it someone knows that a triangle exists, then that same triangle must have three angles as this is one of the triangle s defining predicates. He then tries to follow up on this notion by using the same theory but now linking it to the perfect supreme being . He says that if someone knows that there is a perfect supreme being , then that supreme being must exist as existence in this case is the defining predicate. By using this theory, Immanuel Kant has clearly demolished Descartes argument of the existence of both the “perfect supreme being” and the “triangle”.

Kant does in fact, disagree with Descartes notion that existence is a predicate of God. He rejects this idea of an object that

Похожие работы