The Ontological Argument

Details

Hits: 7755

The Ontological Argument

The following essay is a sample paper for an essay on The Ontological Argument. It should not be used as a ready paper for your assignment as it is already in our website. In case you want an original paper on the same topic please order for the essay at our site and our able writers will work on it from the scratch.    

Ontological arguments are arguments that lead to the conclusion that God exists. These arguments are supposed to be analytical and cannot derive their premises from things like observation of the world. The arguments are supposed to be from reason alone. There is no point, as per this argument, to look for empirical evidence to prove the existence of God’s; people can know that God exists by thinking about it[1].

There are many types of ontological arguments and the most common is the cosmological argument that postulates that the existence of the universe is enough evidence for the existence of the creator, and the explanation needed to be given is that God created the universe. Since everything has a cause for existence, does God have a cause for his existence? This is cosmological argument fails to answer. The kalam perspective of this argument draws a distinction between God and the universe saying that the universe has a beginning while God does not have a beginning, and if the universe has a beginning then the cause of its existence must have been God; every thing that has a beginning has a cause but God’s existence is uncaused. The contingency perspective of the cosmological argument draws the distinction between God and the universe saying that the existence of the universe must be contingent meaning that the universe could not have existed. If the universe is contingent then the universe has a cause for its existence and the cause is God.

The other common ontological argument is the moral argument, which reasons that the existence of morality and its features can be used to imply the existence of God. It claims that moral facts cannot be the way they are if God did not exist. Moral argument takes various perspectives. The formal perspective postulates that the normatively and authority of morality has a divine origin. According to this argument, morality is prescriptive, telling people what to do and someone must prescribe it. It also says that morality is also authoritative, and its authority is superhuman. If man does then not authorize morality, then there is a supernatural source. The perfectionist perspective postulates that if God exists, then he can help people to bridge the gap between what they can do and what morality requires of them. The Kantian perspective claims that moral behavior is rational and that people have a good reason to behave morally if it is in their interest to behave normally. Moral behavior is preparation for afterlife as in the Christian view of afterlife[2].

Anselm versus Gaunilo and Kant

St. Anselm of Canterbury gave the first and the best ontological argument. In the Proslogion, St. Anselm explains the existence of God using the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm claimed that, if the being does not exist, then a mightier being, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists can be conceived[3]. However, this is funny because nothing is greater than the being than which are no greater can is conceivable. Meaning that a being than which no greater can be conceived, that is God, exists. The best way to phase Anselm's argument is in dispute, and any version of the argument will need interpreted questions. Anselm’s argument goes like this. God is “that than which nothing greater can be thought”[4]. Meaning that He is a being that is very great, that nobody cannot so much as think of a being who is greater than God. In psalms, the bible says” the fool said in his heart, there is no God (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). Can the fool be convinced that he is wrong? Different versions of this argument have been supported and vilified by many philosophers. One of them was a monk called Gaunilo .His most popular objection is parallel to what Anselm had generated and gave the island argument- “that island than which no greater can be thought.” We understand what that expression means, so according to Anselms reaction, the greatest conceivable island exists in our understanding[5]. However, that island should really exist.

Gaunilo's answers to that was a mark of genius ness and it is the most scathing criticism to Anselm.  Anselm offered no reply to Lost Island interpretation because he dismissed Gaunilo's take on the original postulation of the Proslogion. Gaunilo had comprehended the argument in a different way. Anselms understanding was contrasting. Anselm claims that the initial argument did not depend on any general assertion. It is open to all minds that can reason that by taking our thoughts from smaller goods to bigger goods, we can form an idea of that than which can a greater cannot be thought based on that than which are a greater can be thought[6].

According to Anselm, no one is unable to think, that is if a thing with a start and ending is good, then a thing that has a start but doesn’t ceases to exist is any better. If the latter is better than the former, a thing that doesn’t not have a start or end is any better still, even if it is all the times going from the past  passing through the present on its way to the future? In addition, that a thing that in no terms requires or is forced to change or move is better even than that, whether such a thing exists in real sense or not? According to Kant, the notion of a necessary and unconditioned being lacks is not intelligible because holding the idea does not mean that non-existence, the   being is not impossible[7].

Kant rejects the ontological evidence for Gods existence, saying that it is based on the premise, an existence that is necessary coming out of reason and simple idea or probability of reality of God. His objections are based on three grounds: one, that existential claims such as existence positions are out of analysis, two, that existence is not predicative, three, that negative theories of existence are not self-contradictory. According to Kant, the concept cannot get meaning or people cannot arrive at a conclusion that God necessarily exists, because neither the God nor the predicative nature exists or can have necessity. The concept can be gotten by judgments, which are directed to the predicative nature. Judgments are mere hypothesis and   assertions that come when there is no denial of a being's possibility of existence. The ontological argument committed is fallacious because raising the question, by assuming that the being exists, when there may be other possible explanations or no existent being in the first place.

My Critique

I do not agree with Kant rejections of Gods existence. We all know that either God has existed since time immemorial. The first and second principles of thermodynamics prove clearly that the universe has not always existed. A universe devoid of God would be operating on blind chances and controlled by stray forces of nature. However, in the universe there are laws in physics and mathematical facts that show consistency and reliability. Those who believe in God see logically conclude that physics laws came from a Lawgiver. The complexity and order in the universe e.g. working of human body and order in the ecosystem cannot be because of evolution. People believe in God since the evidence for him being the Creator is something we can see and understand. For Instance, DNA strands in the man’s body have 30,000 to 140,000 genes. The gene series can be in millions of pairs long. Why then believe that was because of random chance? It is easy for atheists, philosophers and scientists to say that God does not exist since their devices cannot detect or prove the existence of God. Therefore, to them, God does not exist. Just because you cannot see, God does not mean you stop believing that he exists, because ideally, just because you can see the air does not mean you stop breathing.

 Works Cited

Norman K. A Critique of Pure Rason. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1965

Graham O. Ontological Arguments and Belief in God. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995

Smith, N. Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: The Transcendental Dialectic. New York: Humanities Press, 1962, pp 527-531

Spitzer, R. “A Lonerganian Interpretation of the Proof of God's Existence from the Distinction between Actuality and Mere Possibility" International Philosophical Quarterly, September 2000.

• Prev
• Next