What is wrong with the ontological argument?
He argued that many theists would accept that God, by nature, cannot be fully comprehended. Therefore, if humans cannot fully conceive of God, the ontological argument cannot work. Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticism by arguing that the argument applied only to concepts with necessary existence.
What was the best argument against the ontological argument?
Perhaps the best known criticisms of ontological arguments are due to Immanuel Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason. Most famously, Kant claims that ontological arguments are vitiated by their reliance upon the implicit assumption that “existence” is a real predicate.
What is the ontological argument trying to prove?
As an “a priori” argument, the Ontological Argument tries to “prove” the existence of God by establishing the necessity of God’s existence through an explanation of the concept of existence or necessary being .
What was Gaunilo’s main problem with the ontological argument?
In his work In Behalf of the Fool, Gaunilo contends that St Anselm’s ontological argument fails because logic of the same kind would force one to conclude many things exist which certainly do not. An empiricist, Gaunilo thought that the human intellect is only able to comprehend information provided by the senses.
How does Descartes ontological argument differ from Anselm’s?
Despite similarities, Descartes’ version of the argument differs from Anselm’s in important ways. He purports to rely not on an arbitrary definition of God but rather on an innate idea whose content is “given.” Descartes’ version is also extremely simple.
Did Anselm believe in God?
Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. To think of such a being as existing only in thought and not also in reality involves a contradiction, since a being that lacks real existence is not a being than which none greater can be conceived.
Is Anselm’s ontological argument convincing?
Moreover, Anselm’s argument was shown to be a valid argument, with a conclusion that follows from the premises. Therefore, Anselm’s ontological argument is convincing, despite Gaunilo’s objections, and is adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being.
What are the key points of Anselm’s ontological argument?
Anselm’s argument in Chapter 2 can be summarized as follows: 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). God exists as an idea in the mind.
Who is God according to Anselm?
(iv) But then we can conceive something greater than God. (v) This is a contradiction, so if God exists in our understanding, God must exist. According to Anselm, not only is God that which nothing greater can be conceived, God is also… a. Omniscient, Omnipotent, and All good.
What is ontological argument of St Anselm?
The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
How did Kant refute the ontological argument?
According to Kant, the refutation of the ontological argument entails the refutation of the cosmological argument. The later infers the existence of a necessary being from the existence in general. Kant states it briefly: “If anything exists, an absolutely necessary being must also exist” (B633).
What is Anselm’s ontological argument?
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. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived.
When does the ontological argument do not work?
However, if the statement is synthetic, the ontological argument does not work, as the existence of God is not contained within the definition of God (and, as such, evidence for God would need to be found). Kant goes on to write, “‘being’ is evidently not a real predicate” and cannot be part of the concept of something.
Why did Thomas Aquinas object to the ontological argument?
Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God’s existence in his Summa Theologica, objected to Anselm’s argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely.
What was the purpose of Douglas Gasking’s ontological argument?
Douglas Gasking. Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) developed a version of the ontological argument meant to prove God’s non-existence. It was not intended to be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.
How to assess the claim that existence is a predicate?
Assess the claim that existence is a predicate. “A priori arguments for God’s existence are more persuasive than a posteriori arguments”. Discuss Critically evaluate the view that the ontological argument contains a number of logical fallacies which nullify the conclusion that God exists.