Analysis Ontological Argument

In this paper, I will deliver a reconstruction of Anselm's Ontological argument for the existence of God, and its adequacy for the existence of the greatest conceivable being. I will establish this by proving that Anselm's premises are sound and that the deductive arguments follow through a valid conclusion.

Anselm now notices that there is a contradiction between his definition of God, and the assumption that God does not exist. If his definition of God demands absolute, unlimited greatness, then a God who does not exist in realty could be said to be inferior to a God that does indeed exist in reality. In our imagining of a God that exists both in our understanding and in reality, we are imagining a being of which its greatness supersedes our first conception of a non-existing God. Thus, according to Anselm’s argument, our previous assumption that God does not exist in reality must in fact be false. Therefore Anselm concludes that God must exist in reality, because if this was not the case, we would be imagining a being greater than the greatest possible being we could imagine – a contradiction no less. So where do the weaknesses in the Ontological argument lie?

The ontological argument was first formulated by St. Anselm in the 11th century. It argues the existence of God from a deductive and a priori stance. God is a being than which none greater can be conceived. This is the response given by St Anselm to the fool in the psalm who believed there was no God. St Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Benedictine Order explained that for God to exist in the mind he would not be the greatest being. However were God to exist in the mind and reality this would make a being ‘than which none greater can be conceived’, this means God must exist.

The ontological argument was first developed by St. Anselm. In his address, Anselm considered the Fool of Psalm 14, who held the belief that there is no God. He justified that the Fool’s argument was indeed self-undermining. In the ontological argument, Anselm argued that denying that God exists shows that God does exist. He labeled God as a unique perfect being; all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. In his argument, Anselm draws the distinction between “existing in the mind” and “existing in reality”. The example provided was when a person intends on doing something, it exist in the mind; whereas when a person has actually done something, it exist in reality. However, there are many things that exist only in reality such as the example

This review was conducted on the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Health Center page developed by WebMD.com. The page will be evaluated on how practical and beneficial the webpage is on passing knowledge to its readers. This will be done by looking to see how well the site’s coverage of ADHD is, whether or not the information is really useful and current, and what the site’s objectives seem to be.

An easy way for Mackie to respond to Plantinga is by stating even if some of my statements are inconsistent that does not mean that God does exist because no one can prove that god exist and since no one can prove that god exist therefore God doesn’t exist. In response to Mackie response here Plantinga can also make the same argument against Mackie by stating this is where you are wrong because even if we can’t prove that god exist how can you prove that there isn’t a god. In response to this Mackie can also reply by stating since there are evil in this world and God was supposed to be all good, then why does he need to create evil. Since there is evil in this world Mackie would state that god can’t exist because if god is supposed to be all good then why would is there be a need for

In Anselm’s ontological argument, he states that God means something than which greater can be thought. In other words, “God is whatever it is better to be than not to be” (Anselm, Proslogion, 9). This means that God is the greatest thing that can be conceived. For if God did not exist, then something greater than God would exist. Nevertheless, nothing is better than God can be thought, therefore, saying if God did not exist, that something greater than God would exist. contradictions that God is the greatest thing that can be thought. Which helps conclude that God must exist because nothing is greater than God.

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

If He did not exist, then you could still think of an even greater being (one just like God that you said did not exist, except this one would exist). Existence must be one of God's attributes because to remove it, you would still be able to fathom a greater God (one which does exist). The problem most have with this argument is that it seems to simply list existence among God's attributes, rather than show it. The argument appears to say whatever you can imagine should be true in reality.

The ontological argument can be stated in this way: “God is the greatest being imaginable. One of the aspects of perfection or greatness is existence. Thus, God exists.” Or put another way—“The fact that God can be conceived means that he must exist.”

Indigenous people are the people who were on the land first, before settlers came and took it away. In this case, Americans are the settlers, and we took the Indian’s land away. We didn’t gently take their land away, we pulled the rug out from under them and stole basically all of it. We took their land by force so that we could use it for our own benefit. In result of their land being taken away, the Indians had to move. The indians had to move to from the land that they called their own. They had to move to cramped, small, dirty, mold filled, unnourished lands called reservations. Including their land we also took their culture, so to speak. We made it seem like they shouldn’t embrace their culture, that doing that isn’t ‘normal’.

The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is

In the bible, it says that “Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God” (Psalms 14:1). Anselm's reflection to this has become known as the Ontological Argument. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” One way to interpret this phrase is to define “God” as maximal perfection, i.e. the greatest possible being. Anselm justifies his argument by using the idea of a painter. When a painter first knows of what it is he or she wants to accomplish, they have it in their understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. They don’t understand it to exist because they have yet to construct their painting. He is trying to say that there is a difference between saying that something actually exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something actually exists. when you hear the word square, you picture a square, or when you hear the word circle, you picture a circle. Anselm argued when humans hear the word God, they think Supreme Being. When I hear the word “God,” I recognize a God that I know from my personal experiences, but I also know that this God of mine is also working through the lives of everyone, not just mine. He has an intimate oneness with all of us, even if we don’t recognize or know it. I don’t think the God I know of is worried about whether people are religious or not. I think this God is interested in exploring experience, through us.

Anselm in this case defines God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm 30). Ontological arguments tend to be a priori, which is an argument that utilizes thoughts as opposed to empirical evidence to prove validity. Anselm addresses the Atheist fool in an attempt to disprove him “since the fool has said in his heart, There is no God?”(Anselm, 30). Anselm stressed that it is obligatory to recognize God as a perfect being that cannot be improved upon, and if someone understands the concept of God, then God exists in that person’s understanding. It is greater to exist in reality than just simply the understanding. The fool understands the concept of God. Therefore the fool has God in his understanding. Suppose God exists only in the understanding of the fool and not in reality. We could then think of something exactly as it existed in the fools understanding but it can also exist in reality, and the being we conceived of would be greater than the being that exists in the fools understanding. Therefore God exists not only in the understanding of the fool but also in reality. By showing that God exists in reality as well as in the understanding, we see that it is imperative that we should believe in God and that it is indeed reasonable.