Ontological argument on the existence of god PDF

Preview

Summary

summary of ontological argument of the existence of god...

Description

Ontological proof for existence of God Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from what are typically alleged to be none but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century C.E.Anselm was a devotee of Christianity. In his theology Anselm followed St. Augustine who was a Platonist or the follower of Platonic philosophy. Anselm accepted the role of faith or belief over reason. His remarkable words are, “For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For I believe this too, that unless I believed I should not understand.” Anselm’s argument Anselm offers platonic argument for the existence of God on the basis of the good. The very essence of the idea of the perfect god implies his existence. In other words, the non-existence of god cannot be entertained even in thought if one understands the meaning of God. Therefore, there is an idea of an absolutely perfect being that is an idea of God than whom none greater can be thought. It follows from this that the idea of God as absolute perfection is necessarily the idea of an existent being. If it is supposed that corresponding to the idea of a perfect being god need not exist then it means that the idea of a non-existing perfect being is not that of a being greater than which nothing can be thought. Therefore, a ‘perfect being’, greater than which nothing can be thought of, must necessarily be an ‘existing being’. A perfect being means a Being which has a number of excellent attributes each in perfection. Existence is also an attribute so a perfect being cannot lack existence. Everything depends on existence being an attribute. Therefore, God exists. The argument in this passage can accurately be summarized in standard form: 1.It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that 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 (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). 5.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.) 6.Therefore, God exists. Intuitively, one can think of the argument as being powered by two ideas. The first, expressed by Premise 2, is that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates all of the perfections. Otherwise put, Premise 2 asserts that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates every property that makes a being greater, other things being equal, than it would have been without

that property (such properties are also known as “great-making” properties). Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection or great-making property. Accordingly, the very concept of a being that instantiates all the perfections implies that it exists. Suppose B is a being that instantiates all the perfections and suppose B doesn’t exist (in reality). Since Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection, it follows that B lacks a perfection. But this contradicts the assumption that B is a being that instantiates all the perfections. Thus, according to this reasoning, it follows that B exists. Gaunilo’s criticism and Anselm’s response Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a monk and contemporary of Anselm’s, is responsible for one of the most important criticisms of Anselm’s argument. It is quite reasonable to worry that Anselm’s argument illegitimately moves from the existence of an idea to the existence of a thing that corresponds to the idea i.e. the idea of god and the idea of existence have been put together but even the idea of existence is only an idea, a mere thought which is abstract and not a concrete existence. As the objection is sometimes put, Anselm simply defines things into existence-and this cannot be done. Gaunilo shared this worry, believing that one could use Anselm’s argument to show the existence of all kinds of non-existent things. By thinking of a perfect island, one cannot bring about an actual perfect island. Therefore, the idea of perfect being cannot prove the existence of God. But Anselm replied to this criticism that the idea of a perfect thing having a beginning or end or being composed of parts does not imply its existence. But the only being that cannot be thought of as non-existent is that in which no thought finds beginning or end or composition of parts. Hence, the ontological argument is not so much rational as it is an expression of one’s faith. It is therefore, for nothing that Anselm notes faith higher than reason. Descartes: argument According to Descartes, the existence of God follows from the idea of the perfect being just as the sum of three angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles follows from the idea of triangle. Therefore, the most perfect being cannot be thought without at the same time thinking of him actually existing. According to Descartes, the idea and the actual finite things are not inseparable but the idea of perfect being and the existence is inseparable. Therefore, God exists not only in thought but in reality also. This proof makes God’s existence depend on the thought of it. God exist because we think of a perfect being namely God. Descartes points out that his proof is different from that of Anselm for Descartes the thought of God depend upon his being. Imperfect being cannot give rise to idea of perfection. Criticism A non-existent God nowise differ from an existent God, like a non-existent apple has all those qualities which an existent apple has but the idea of that non-existent apple never proves its existence. In the same way, the idea of God never proves its existence. According to Kant, if idea proves the existence of objects then a beggar can enjoy all the luxuries in his life with the idea of luxuries. Descartes himself points out that the properties of a triangle follow from its definition. At the same time, we know that a proposition of mathematics is

independent of any actual state of affairs. Similarly, we can use a perfect idea to another idea of an existent perfect being. But the idea of an existent being is an idea and not an actuality. According to Kant, the ontological proof is based on self-contrary term like ‘necessary being’. If God is necessary then it can be expressed in an analytic proposition like logic and mathematics but we know that both have no relation with actual state of affair. Therefore, if God exist or is an existing being then that should be experienced by individual and for that synthetic proposition will be used in spite of analytic proposition. Thus, the concept of necessary being is self-contradictory....