The Ontological Argument Essay -- social issues

The ontological Argument The Ontological argumentation is a group of different philosophers arguments for the experienceence of perfection. Ontological literally means talking about macrocosm and so in this case, that being is the hold outence or being of matinee idol. The main component of the Ontological argument give the axe be found in the Anselms Proslogion which is a dead work that tries to demonstrate both the creation and the nature of god. His main object glass in writing the Proslogion is non to directly prove the existence of beau ideal merely to moreover, to show the relationship between credence and reason. Anselm wanted to read the object of the touch. He is as well as non trying to defend his belief against the atheist and neither is he trying to convince the atheist that god exists. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of divinity fudge as it is an a priori deductive argument, a priori meaning that can come to a conclusi on by the use of reason and not proof. A deductive argument means that if the premises that be put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used. Anselms first form of the argument is that God is that than which no(prenominal) greater can be conceived. Firstly, it must be emphasised that Anselms definition does not limit God to being the greatest but makes it known that nothing greater can be thought than God himself. Therefore, God should not in any way be relate to terms such as omnipotent as terminology such as this limit him to what he really is. With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but withal in reality. Anselm uses the example of the fool to prove his point on Gods existence. He says that when the fool says that There is no God in Psalms, he must therefore understand what he hears , and what he understands in his intellect by the t erm God. Therefore, if he knows what God is, God must exist as it is impossible to know what something is if it does not exist. In chapter three in the Proslogion, Anselm contributes his second form to the argument. This form of the argument is that of prerequisite existence. He says that that than which can be thought not to exist is not as great as that which cannot be thought not to exist. Therefore, to say that God can be thought not to exist if the definition of God... ...elms first form of the argument and indirectly also demolishes the argument on the necessary existence though his criticism. He criticises and successfully attacks the Cartesian version that in order for there to be a supreme being, existence must be predicate of God (the supreme being). Norman Malcolm then tried to save this argument by coming up with an argument which Davis seems to have demolished successfully. Although the argument does not seem to remain too strong in the light of these responses, we ca n say that although Anselm failed to show the fool that God existed, he by getting more knowledge and understanding about the Christian beliefs seems to fortify his faith as a believer. Anselms second form of the argument seems has unploughed philosophers interested and fascinated with it throughout time. The precise fact that philosophers such as Descartes, Kant, Malcolm have been intrigued by the ontological argument strongly shows that it is a very important and complex argument which is in favour of the existence of God. Although a final and ultimate answer to the question of Gods existence has yet to be attained, it is still considered to be a remarkable argument.