...i) Examine the ontological argument as an a priori proof for the existence of God. (18) Ontology is the branch of philosophy that explores the whole concept of existence. Sometimes scientist have to assume that something exists in reality in the physical world even if they have never come across an example of it, because a combination of factors indicate that there must be X, even if we have not found it yet, in order to explain other things. The ontological argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument, working from first principles and a definition in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God. It is also a deductive argument, using logic rather than depending on the evidence of sense experience. In this way, then the ontological argument is different from other attempts to argue for the existence of God. The ontological argument argues that almost everything, which exists, does so in a contingent way; it depends upon other factors. We as individuals are contingent beings; everything else apart from God exists contingently. God, however, it is argued by religious believers, is necessary rather than contingent, there was no time when God didn’t exist. There is nothing that could happen which would cause God to cease to exist. The ontological argument begins with assumptions about God, without any empirical evidence such as the characteristics of God: Omnipotent, omniscient and omnipotent. This is what makes the argument an a priori argument, as most of the...
Words: 1496 - Pages: 6
...a) Analyze the distinctive features of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God (18) The Ontological Argument is an a priori and deductive argument which attempts to prove God’s existence. It is also a reduction ad absurdum argument which shows that the existence of God could not be denied because to do so would involve adopting an illogical argument. It was formed by St. Anselm (1033-1109), but is still a strong argument for the existence of God today. Anselm firstly argues nothing greater than God can be conceived and secondly, it is greater to exist than not to exist. He next explains that if we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of something greater than God. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God. Anselm states that it is inconceivable that God doesn’t exist and therefore God exists. Anselm thought that not believing in God is ridiculous, claiming it is better to exist in the mind and in reality than to just exist in the mind. Existence is a predicate of perfection. Therefore God must exist in reality. ‘The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’’ (Psalm 14).Anselm stated that even an atheist must have a definition of God because even the suggestion that God does not exist requires the concept of God. It seemed logical to conclude that to argue that there is no God; even the fool must understand the concept of God. Since the greatest thought must have an equivalent reality to be greater than even the least significant...
Words: 1675 - Pages: 7
...“The ontological argument does not succeed in going beyond defining God” to what extent is this true? The ontological argument, originally proposed by Anselm in his book ‘The Proslogion’ and later adapted by philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Descartes, defines God as “a being that which nothing greater can be conceived”. In my opinion the argument does not only fail to go beyond this definition, but we cannot be sure than it defines God correctly either. Firstly we cannot argue that the argument goes beyond the definition of God because as Kant points out the argument has a major flaw, the ontological argument is based on an assumption that to exist is a property of perfection. He uses the analogy of money saying that 100___ that existed in reality were no different in value to 100___ that existed hypothetically as both, in theory were worth the same and therefore equal. Bertrand Russell makes a similar point, he claims that the ontological argument uses the word ‘exists’ incorrectly and that existence is not a property of things, but of the idea of those things. Russell uses the example of dragons, saying that if someone says a dragon does not exist what they mean is of all the things that exist the word dragon refers to none of them, however this fact is not part of the definition itself and changes nothing about the description of the features of a dragon, therefore existence is an extension of an intention and not a definition. Alvin Plantinga attempts to redeem...
Words: 429 - Pages: 2
...of a very long history of arguments, counter- arguments, thesis, and theories; thus we can also see questions, and answers that lead to more questions and so on. Like most sciences, philosophy has its own procedures and its own approach to inquiries about the world. One of the central objectives of this discipline is to learn and make use of those procedures to understand the mysteries behind existence and reality. It is also a study that aims to find out the nature of truth and knowledge and to discover what is of basic value and the significance of life. As established by its founding fathers the basic business of philosophy is to know what truly exists and the relation among these existents. Reason is a method in which people acquire knowledge and understanding by means of thinking in an organized and clear way. It has played a big role in the progress of different branches of philosophy (e.g. epistemology, metaphysics, etc.) throughout the years. Some of philosophy’s longest running problems are based on reason but reason also paves way for the solution to these problems. In this paper, I will address different examples that exhibit the being philosophical of reason. REASON IN THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS Ontological arguments are arguments that assert the existence of a God by using premises that lack support from observation of the world or usage of senses. In other words, ontological arguments rely on analytic, a priori...
Words: 1037 - Pages: 5
...Tianna Dockett PHIL 101 Final Exam 1. Retributive justice is a legal principal that dictates that punishment for a crime is acceptable as long as it is a proportionate response to the crime committed. In this type of justice system, a crime is typically seen as being done against the state or government, rather than against an individual or community. The standard of fairness is likewise found in the thought of reasonable play. On the off chance that individuals accept that a reasonable procedure was utilized as a part of choosing what it to be dispersed, then they may well acknowledge an irregularity in what they get in correlation to others. 2.3. As a record of political association on the bigger scale, Plato's protection of a aristocratic government was unrealistic to win wide endorsement in fair Athens. He utilized the characters Glaucon and Adeimantus to voice pragmatic complaints against the arrangement. They are particularly concerned (as Plato's Athenian counterparts may well have been) with some of its procurements for the gatekeeper class, including the support of both men and ladies, the disposal of families, and the instruction of youngsters. Likewise, Plato accepted that the hobbies of the state are best saved if kids are raised and taught by the general public overall, instead of by their natural folks. So he proposed a basic (if startlingly new) plot for the reproducing, sustaining, and preparing of youngsters in the gatekeeper class.4. Using a...
Words: 1277 - Pages: 6
...AS Philosophy & Ethics Course Handbook 2013 to 2014 [pic] OCR AS Level Religious Studies (H172) http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/type/gce/hss/rs/index.aspx OCR AS Level Religious Studies (H172) You are studying Philosophy of Religion and Religious Ethics and will be awarded an OCR AS Level in Religious Studies. The modules and their weightings are: |AS: |Unit Code |Unit Title |% of AS |(% of A Level) | | |G571 |AS Philosophy of Religion |50% |(25%) | | |G572 |AS Religious Ethics |50% |(25%) | If you decide to study for the full A Level you will have to study the following modules at A2: |A2: |Unit Code |Unit Title |(% of A Level) | | |G581 |A2 Philosophy of Religion |(25%) | | |G582 |A2 Religious Ethics |(25%) | Grading | ...
Words: 13036 - Pages: 53
...Apologetics A couple of months ago, being pretty ignorant, I had to ask myself, “what exactly is Apologetics.” After a little research and a few lectures from my Professors, I learned that “it is the defense of Christian faith, usually on intellectual issues.” (Horton 640). There are many arguments that can be used in order to defend the faith, however, I will focus on four arguments, ontological, Natural Theology, accuracy of scriptures, and personal miracles. First is the ontological argument. “Human beings almost universally acknowledge that there is something, or someone, beyond themselves and that in some way, or ways, they are responsible to that something or someone (Railey/Aker 40).” This shows that the human race recognizes the fact that we are not alone in the universe and we are to some extent dependent on something supernatural. Secondly is the appeal of Natural Theology. We can look all around at the beautiful things on this earth and we can see that it must have had divine intervention from some one or thing. “Creation, with its infinite variety, beauty, and order, reflects a God who is infinitely wise and powerful.” (Higgins 69). Thirdly is accuracy of scriptures. “The Bible is internally consistent even though it was written over a period of some 1,500 years, about 1450 bce to 100 ce, over 40 generations by more than 40 different authors.” (Marino bibliology 4.1.1.3.) “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has...
Words: 518 - Pages: 3
...In The Ontological Argument, St. Anselm argues that it would be a self-contradiction if a being that none greater can be conceived did not exist. Through relations of premises, which pertain to ideas in our minds and actuality, Anselm draws the conclusion that an all-powerful being must exist. Many philosophers realize, however, that the ontological argument is problematic in that the relationship drawn between mental and actual reality is not clearly stated. In this paper I will argue that the lack of distinction between reality and beings that exist in the mind proves to be a weakness in the ontological argument. I will do this first by presenting an important philosopher who directly responds to the ontological argument, then I will further develop my argument with the notion that Anselm’s argument is too ambiguous considering we can only comprehend finite beings, and finally, I will address a response to Aquinas’s objection and why this proves to have weaknesses of its own. The ontological argument is stated as such: by definition, God is a being that none greater can be imagined. This being exists as an idea in the mind. Other things equal, a being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the...
Words: 562 - Pages: 3
...Arguments About God The question of God’s existence has plagued people across the planet as long as we have existed. It has shaped our lives and civilizations as a whole. Cosmological arguments for the existence of god are some the oldest. They have been supported by theorists such as Aristotle and Plato and philosophers throughout history. “They all begin with the empirical fact that the universe exists—and end with the conclusion that only God could be responsible for this fact” (63). While they take different forms, they all have this basic structure. Several of their forms were developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, one was his famous was the first-cause argument. It explains that everything that happens has a cause. So something must have been the first cause, which causes the second, and so on. God must be the first cause. Arguments against Aquinas’ question the idea that an infinite regress could not exist. Philosophers, like David Hume, state the universe needs no beginning, it could just be eternal. “The universe may have simply always been” (67). While cosmological appeals stand on the evidence mainly of experience, ontological arguments stand solely on logic. St. Anselm, originator of this theory, described god as “that which no greater can be conceived” (Oppy). He reasoned that nothing can be greater than a being that which no greater can be conceived therefore that being (God) exists. There are many objections to ontological arguments. One general criticism is that...
Words: 432 - Pages: 2
...St. Anselm was an archbishop of Canterbury who lived from 1033-1109. He is the originator of the ontological argument, which he discusses further into the Proslogion. The first version of the argument, which is the original version, states various facts and statements about the greatest possible being, which is God. The fact is it is a conceptual truth, meaning true and respective to the definition, that God is a being than which non greater can be imagined, being that God is the greatest possible being that can be imagined. God not only exists as a conscious thought but also as an idea in the mind. Leading to the point that a being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, with respect to other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God that is if a greatest possible being does exist. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God because it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Therefore, God does exist....
Words: 439 - Pages: 2
...[Name Omitted] Gaunilo tells us that Anselm’s ontological argument proves too much: The perfect island does not exist. If two arguments rely on the same (or sufficiently similar) premises and have the same logical form, then if one of those arguments proves the existence of the perfect island, then both arguments are unsound. Gaunilo gives an argument that the perfect island exists, and his argument uses the same logical form and the same (or sufficiently similar) premises as Anselm’s ontological argument. So it follows that Anselm’s ontological argument is unsound. Let us grant that the perfect island argument and the ontological argument have the same logical form and the same (or sufficiently similar) premises....
Words: 2435 - Pages: 10
...The Ontological argument is a debate created by St. Anselm and his book, Proslogian, this argument was created, as stated by Anselm, to re-inforce faith but not proves God’s existence, this is stated by Anselm as Proslogian is a supplementary prayer book. However the argument itself does border on trying to proves gods existence, this argument is as follows: God is a being that which no greater can be conceived, a being that exists in reality is better than one that just solely exists in the mind, therefore god must exist in reality. Anselm himself argued that even through reason, those without faith could not truly understand god, as Anselm stated that the argument was never meant to for faith upon someone but this argument itself was only for the reassurance of faith, he himself already accepts gods existence. Anselm considered that reason alone can lead to error and therefore has to be supported by faith as it is only through faith that greater understanding can be achieved. if the believer accepts there is god then the ontological argument may be a valid argument that god’s existence is necessary. In the same way a triangle has 3 sides, for a believer that believes they understand the concept of god then for them god exists to quote Anselm: “For I believe this too, that ‘unless I believe I shall not understand’”. Therefore Anselm himself believes that it does not actually prove anything unless you have this preconceived notion about the existence of god, this is also known...
Words: 1066 - Pages: 5
...The Ontological Argument was founded by St Anselm. St Anselm was the Archbishop of Canterbury in the late 11th century and was an avid philosopher. Anselm most famous work was a book called Proslogion. He outlined the Ontological Argument in parts two and three of Proslogion. As a firm believer in God, Anselm wanted to prove God’s existence and to refute ‘the fool who says in his heart that there is no God.’ (Psalms 14:1). The ontological argument is a priori and deductive argument. It is priori as it is not based on our experiences of the world but relies on reason alone. The argument is also deductive, this means that if the premises (supporting statements) are true, then the conclusion must be true. If true, the premises logically entail the conclusion. In Proslogion 2, Anselm main argument is developed. He begins by defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”. This means, it is impossible to think of anything with greater value or which has qualities (knowledge, power, etc.) to a greater degree. According to Anselm, even “the fool” (Psalm 14) who denies God at least has a concept of God present in the mind. Now everyone has a concept of God, one can ask, does God exist merely in the understanding or in reality as well? Anselm argues that if God existed merely in the understanding, then we could conceive of a being great (one which existed). Therefore, the greatest conceivable being cannot exist in the mind only, but must exist in reality as...
Words: 262 - Pages: 2
...Explain Descartes Ontological Argument (25 Marks) René Descartes was a French philosopher who developed contemporary approaches to philosophy. In his writings the Meditations of Philosophy he examines the nature and reality of god featuring his Ontological approach to the existence of God. This argument is a priori and is featured heavily in the fifth Meditation. It is a deductive approach to the existence of God. Descartes ontological argument is a development of Anslem argument to which he continues to define God as ‘supremely perfect being’. He argued that a being which is the most perfect is necessary. He argued that God is the ‘supremely perfect being’ he must possess attributes associated with perfection such as beauty, existence, goodness and being eternal. In his writings Descartes argues that the existence of God cannot be doubted and is similar to the truths of mathematics which can also not be doubted and used his ontological argument to demonstrate this He uses an example of a triangle to do this. A triangle by nature has three sides, three interior angles which add up to 180 degrees. Descartes refers to this as being ‘immutable’ meaning being unable to change. Similar to a triangle, God has an ‘immutable’ nature and his existence is a part of this. He argues that the interior angles of a triangle equating to 180 degrees is a fundamental part of its nature such as the existence of God. This demonstrates that existence according to Descartes us a predicate...
Words: 397 - Pages: 2
...Descartes Exam Questions & Notes (PHIL 1F90) Give a detailed account of Descartes’ systematic doubt or methodic doubt in Meditation I making certain to distinguish between real doubts and hypothetical or metaphysical doubts. Then explain how Descartes dispels each of these doubts during the course of the subsequent Meditations beginning with the cogito in Meditation 2. A methodic or systematic doubt refers to the common sense or naïve realism. So common sense or naïve realism is the belief that all knowledge comes from or through the senses. Naïve realism are things that are exactly as they appear to be and they appear to be exactly the way they are; a teacup for example. It’s possible to doubt naïve realism in that senses are not always truthful. The difference between real and hypothetical or metaphysical doubt is that Real Doubt are doubts we actually have such as those that really do happen; for example, things that happen sometimes, occasionally, or once in a while. Metaphysical Doubt on the other hand are doubts that could happen. It’s like a logical extension of real doubt, logical possibilities for example “let us assume, what if, I will therefore suppose that.” Sometimes is also considered a real doubt for example “Sometimes my senses do deceive me.” It’s important to note that external conditions are not ideal. Descartes discusses the lunatic hypothesis and the dream hypothesis. He says that in a lunatic hypothesis internal conditions are not ideal since a lunatic...
Words: 1441 - Pages: 6
