Ontolgical argument essay: To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the existence of God?

Intro

The ontological argument was brought up by Anselm, and he developed it into to 2 parts. the first was from he detention of God that even the atheist would accept, and the second part was based on the statement that God's existence is necessary. it is aprior logic to prove that God's existence is logical nessecity. Descartes then reforms the argument in the 16th century. However, both Anselkm and Descartes argument are based on the the misconception that existence can be proved without empirical evidence. Kant ad Hume prove that the ontological argument ias not sufcessfu,l in provide Gods existence.

Para 1 Anselm a01

Anselm wrongly seeks to prove Gods existence to the atheist in Psam 14 where it states "the fool says in his heart that there is no god". he argues that the atheist, who Denis the physical existence of God, accepts and recognises that God, as a concept , must be denied as that "nothing greater can be conceived". if the atheists accept that God's definition is correct, Anselm then states that in order tfor God to be the greatest being, he must exist both in the imagination, "in intellect: " but also in reality , :in re". if a being only existed in the mind, any being that exist in reality could b said to be greater than it. Fore example, imagine that someone was offered an imaginary £10 note or a real £1, even though the imaginary money is a larger sum it would be better to have the £1 because it exists in reality and can actually buy something, therefore supporting the idea that it is greater to exist in reality thann just int he imagination. Anselm gives an example of a painter. A painter has an image of in his oimdn, then puts it on a canvas, not it is in his mind and the canvas which is better than imagination alone. For God to be the greatest being, he therefore must exist both in the imagination and in reality. thus Anselm shelved that he believes hhe has proved god's exxistnace through his definition.

Para 2 Guanilo

Gaulnilo attempts to disprove Anselks first version of the argument is a letter tittles "behalf of the Fool", he raises the key question that is later developed and more successful argued by Kant and Hume to disprove the ontological argument. Gaulino believed that Anselm was defining God into existence .Gaunilo shows the Anselm logoc s flawed by applying the argument to a different object, an island, and suggestion that this is a unsuccessful idea and Anselmsidea is falwed. Gaunoo is applying a form of analysis called "redact ad absurdism", to reduce the argument to show its absurdness. Gaunilo replaced the idea of god with the idea of an island; he said that we could imagine the most excellent island. We might then use Ansel's logic and think of another inferior islan, which means that this is inferior to the same island existing in reality, if our island is truly the most excellent, it cannot have any inferiority, it therefore emst exist in reality. But clearly there is no such island in reality. In my option Gauios is correct in his analysis that this seems absurd.he takes issue with a number of different aspects of

Anselm's argument Although Anslem develops a response, Gaulinos demonstrates that Anselks is incorrect.

Para 3 Anslem:

nselm responds to Guanilo's critique by developing his second form of the argument; from necessity. Anselm argues that existence is a predicate of God and it is part of Gods nature to exist. Anselm goes on further to say that necessity is something only unique to God. ontinent objects are obejcts that depend on something else for their existence. For example, I myself am a contingent being as I depend on many things in order to simply exist. Some examples of this include: my parents, oxygen, water, gravity, food and so on. Anselm concludes that God, if he is to be 'the greatest conceivable being' he must be necessary and not depend on anything other than himself for existence, for if he did, this being would be greater than he. Therefore, necessity becomes an attribute applied to God; a necessary being is greater than a contingent one.

Para 3

This line of argument is further supported, incorrectly, by Malcolm, who argues that God's existence must be a logical necessity because that If God does not exists today, then he never can and never will exist; his exist therefore must be impossible. If God does exist, then he must exist necessarily. God's existence is therefore either necessary or impossible. God existence is not a logical impossibility as there is nothing logically contradictory therefore God's existence must be necessary

However, Malcom's argument is clearly incorrect and has been widely rejected because there are many things that have existed in the past that now no longer exist; this does not make their past existence impossible.

Secondly it also relies on the acceptance of the premise that God is a different type of being than any other object which seems an arbitrary fact without supporting evidence. Thus Malcom and Anselm's arguments for God's necessary existence are clearly flawed and thus the ontological argument is not successful in proving God's existence.

Para 4 Descartes (don't men this)

Descartes re elasblishe the ontological rguement through a more mathematical approach,Descartes defined God as 'the supremely perfect being'. He argues that 'Gods essence involves his existence' as existence if a part of perfection and thus God must possess the attribute of existence. He uses the illustration of mountain valleys and triangles. Descartes argues that some qualities of an object are intrinsic to its definition; a triangle, by definition, is a shape that has three sides and angles that all add up to 180 degrees, in the same way to say that God does not exist is to deny that a triangle has three sides.

God's existence cannot be separated from his essential characteristics and thus God must exist. Descartes states "existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than can it having three angles equal to two right angles be separated from the essence of a triangle." Thus Descartes restates God's existence through the ontological argument; however Kant and Hume prove Descartes argument flawed.

Kant argues, based on his dualistic view of the world, that it is impossible to prove the existence of an object without empirical verifiable proof. He argues that 'existence is not a predicate'. A predicate is a descriptive characteristic of an object such as 'small', 'large', 'white' and reveals something about that object. Kant demonstrates that existence is not something that can be attributed to an object and thus claim that it proves that it is factual true. n order for something to be proved, Kant says that there must be empirical evidence that demonstrates the object has those characteristics.

Kant is correct in showing that existence must be supported by verifiable proof in an empirical form. If the notion of a triangle is removed, there is then no necessity for it to have three sides; in the same way if the idea of God is removed there is no need for his existence to be necessary. Thus Kant ultimately demonstrates the ontological argument fails to prove God's existence.

Hume supports Kant's view. Hume argues that 'existential statements are synthetic'. This means that statements about the existence of objects are empirically proved through 'a posteriori' reasoning, not through 'a priori' Put simply, Hume and Kant both argue that it is a logical fallacy to claim that you can describe something into existence; existence can only be demonstrated through the use of empirical evidence.

Conc

Therefore it is clear through the challenges of Gaunilo, Kant and Hume that the ontological argument fails in its attempt to prove God's existence.