Ontological Argument Essay Sample
A: Explain the traditional signifiers of the Ontological statement as put frontward by Anselm and Descartes:
When sing an statement for God. the ontological statement is one of the most challenging. Chiefly because of it’s a priori nature. differing from other popular theological statements which are a posteriori such as the cosmogonic statement. This means the ontological statement is understood to be true analytically on its ain footings without an entreaty to see. Because it does non depend on empirical findings. it – if it is valid – is perfectly certain. Furthermore. the statement intends to turn out a supreme being. one which is good and all-knowing. and non simply a obscure “first cause. ” In this essay I shall explicate the statement formulated by Anselm. every bit good as the promotion put away by Descartes.
St Anselm of Canterbury was a theologian. philosopher. and writer of the proslogian in which the first known preparation of the ontological statement for the being of God was set out. Although. it is widely debated as to whether Anselm intended for his words in the proslogian to be seen as an statement for Gods being. but instead a supplication to God in which he offers a devout geographic expedition of his religion. seeking for greater apprehension of Him. Nevertheless. he produced two ontological statements. which were contained in proslogian chapter two and proslogian chapter three. both will be summarised and so farther explained.
The first of his statements – in drumhead – is as followed: God is that than which nil greater can be conceived. It is greater to be in world than in the understanding entirely. therefore God exists. Here Anselm presents an reductio ad absurdum for Gods being. taking a being that than which nil greater can be conceived. to so do a farther averment about bing in world being viewed higher than bing in understanding or in the head entirely. Therefore if God is a being that than which nil greater can be conceived. and to be in world is greater than to be in the head. by definition God must be. Anselm summarised ‘Therefore. Lord. non merely are You that than which nil greater can be conceived but You are besides something greater than can be conceived. Indeed. since it is possible to be conceived to be something of this sort. if You are non this really thing. something can be conceived greater than You. which can non be done. ’
The second of Anselm’s statements to many is viewed as a response to his major unfavorable judgment presented by a Monk by the name of Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. though it doesn’t needfully associate to the inquiry. a greater account of Anselm’s Ontological statement can be provided with the cognition of Gaunilo’s unfavorable judgment explained. Gaunilo stated foremost that he can gestate of an island that than which no greater island can be conceived. if it is better to be in world than in the understanding entirely. the island must be. His point being it is obvious that this island does non be. because he merely made up in his caput. nevertheless by using what seems to be the same apprehension as Anselm. he believes he has arrived at the same decision and therefore he has proved Anselm’s statement wrong.
However Anselm’s 2nd ontological statement proves Gaunilo’s expostulation shut-in. Again summarised. Anselm’s 2nd ontological statement is as followed: God is that than which nil greater can be conceived. Necessary being is a better being than that which is contingent. hence God needfully exists. In his first statement. Anselm merely suggests a cogent evidence for God’s being. However. for God to be the supreme being He is. there must be more to Him than the fact that He merely exists. Anselm hence argues that God exists because non merely is God that than which nil greater can be conceived. but besides that God is a being which has necessary being demoing similarities to Aquinas’ 3rd manner. This statement from Anselm gets around the counter statement produced by Gaunilo by conveying in the construct of necessary and contingent being. Anselm believes that God must needfully be nevertheless. he besides believes that Gaunilo’s Island does non hold necessary being but alternatively that it has contingent being and hence Gaunilo’s statement is seen to be proven as being invalid and hence Anselm seems to hold produced a moderately sound statement.
In the seventeenth Century the Ontological statement was resurrected by Rene Descartes. He claimed at the beginning of the Meditations. that his intent is to show that the cognition of God is more certain than the cognition of material things. His ontological statement can non be understood without mention to his philosophical method in the Meditations.
The Meditations is perchance one of the most influential plants. every bit good as the beginning of the modern epoch in doctrine. In it. Descartes invites his followings to take part in what he calls a thought experiment in order to happen what is known to be perfectly certain and rid oneself of mistake. Descartes uses the method of inflated uncertainty to detect the absolute foundation of truth. in other words. that one truth which can non be doubted. He finds that he can doubt centripetal experiences and even the automatic truths of mathematics. but nevertheless he can non doubt that he is doubting. Clarifying farther. he may be deceived about everything. but he can non be deceived about the fact that he exists. One can non be deceived unless one exists. Cogito Ergo Sum. Here Descartes finds his epistemic foundation from which he can construct the entireness of his doctrine. Having found something beyond uncertainty. he can now spread out to other certain truths. including his Ontological statement.
Descartes’ ontological statement for the being of God summarised in his words is as followed ‘ If Is can bring forth from my thought the thought of something entails that everything which i clearly and clearly perceive to belong to that thing truly does belong to it. is this non a possible footing for another statement to turn out the being of God? Surely. the thought of God. or a supremely perfect being. is one which I find within me merely every bit certainly as the thought of any form or figure. And my understating that it belongs to his nature that he ever exists is no less clear and distinguishable that is the instance when I prove of any form or figure that some belongings belongs to its nature. Hence. even if it turned out that non everything on which I have meditated in these past yearss is true. I ought still to see the being of God as holding at least the same degree of certainty as I have hither to attributed to the truths of mathematics. ’ Page 45 of The Fifth Meditation – Descartes.
He. like Anselm has two subdivisions to his ontological statement. the first is presented as an analogy. He stated ‘I clearly perceive in the thought of a trigon that it has three sides. and that the largest side is opposite the widest angle. Therefore. this inherently belongs to the trigon. So it is with God. I clearly perceive in the thought of God that he needfully exists. and I perceive this merely as clearly one perceive the geometrical belongingss of a trigon. ’ Here he relates God’s necessary being to the distinguishable and absolute features of a trigon. sing them to be merely every bit true as each other. Descartes uses his cogent evidence that God’s being is necessary to lucubrate in the 2nd subdivision of his statement. Descartes argues that being is in fact a predicate of God. significance being itself asserts God. Descartes provinces that seeking to believe of God without the predicate of being is unlogical and similar to conceive ofing a trigon without three sides. This is because to be the supremely perfect being God is. he must hold being as otherwise he can non be considered perfect. Therefore. because being is the predicate of a most-perfect being. Descartes concludes God must be.
Bacillus: The Ontological statement is merely in the head and is hence a weak statement
There are several positions and sentiments discussed by philosophers about the cogency and strength the ontological statement holds. The facet of the statement merely being present in the head is cardinal to it’s unfavorable judgments.
However. the ontological statement itself is an a priori statement. intending it needs no empirical grounds at all. Rather. the statement begins with an explication of the construct of God. and seeks to show that God exists on the footing of that construct entirely. This means the statement. as the rubric states is merely in the head. nevertheless in agencies it has no demand to turn out anything through empirical observation as by logical logical thinking God must certainly be. this besides avoids conflicting other empirical theories therefore it could be deemed to be strong.
Although. St. Thomas Aquinas objects to the statement based on the definition it hold refering the God of classical theism. To Aquinas. God can non even be comprehended in the human head. and that the construct of Him will ne’er be right when thought approximately. He argues that God is far beyond human apprehension. therefore worlds can non turn out that God exists from their ain thought of God. in other words the being of God is non axiomatic. The proposition ‘God exists’ is non axiomatic to the human head. For the human head does non hold an intuition of the kernel of God. Therefore the fact the ontological statement is merely present in the head so weakens it.
Further to this. David Hume raised similar expostulations to the statement. He argued that it is non possible to take an thought in one’s head. use pure logic to that thought. and make a decision based wholly in the external. discernible existence. He argues that being can non be treated as a predicate which something can ‘have’ or ‘not have’ . or which can be added to or subtracted from something. Showing farther failing in the ontological statement based on its nature of merely being present in the head.
In response to Hume’s expostulation nevertheless. some would state that every bit human existences. we base our lives around that which we can detect instead than that which we can rationally turn out. If this is the instance. so Hume’s statement is reasonably robust and rough and the ontological statement could hold some foundation. Giving some statement against the statement. However Hume provides another expostulation in thought of God. When sing God as as ‘in the mind’ and so to believe of God as ‘in reality’ is. harmonizing to Hume. precisely the same thing. Uniting this thought with the first portion of his expostulation. we could propose that all we are making is ‘thinking about God’ and non supplying evidences for His being. Supplying an statement for the statement. In decision the ontological statement does hold some possible foundation and cogency to be seen as a sound statement for God. nevertheless there are many expostulations which makes this hard to be the instance. particularly because of the fact is it merely present in the head.
