Argument For The Existence Of God example essay topic

The ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God. It is a reflection on the meaning of the word God; it is an a priori argument. This could be seen as a major strength of the Ontological argument it does not depend on evidence. It is what it is. For example how do we know a bear is an animal? Because as part of the definition of bear we know it is an animal, in the same way God is the definition of God.

It is an analytic statement; existence is God as an animal is a bear. Therefore God is necessarily true because the predicate is included in subject of the statement. He is 'de dicto', a logical necessity. God is defined by the statement God is, if it is said that God exists this implies he didn't exist before and will cease to exist at some point but the statement God is does not imply anything, God will always be, and has always been he is timeless and eternal. It doesn't make sense to ask if God exists. If there is no God then where did the idea come from?

Descartes argued that it is illogical to think of God without existence it is like thinking of a triangle and not a shape with three angles. God is a logical necessity therefore God must exist, this argument was put forward by Anselm he thought that it was possible to conceive of a being, the existence of which is necessary, and God must be such a being if he is 'That which nothing greater can be conceived' Because there must be something that nothing greater can be thought of. Descartes argued 'God is a supremely perfect being' And that existence is perfection; this means that God must exist, as he is 'supremely perfect' The Ontological argument does not rely on or involve faith or religion. In this respect in can apply to everyone and the do not have to belong to a particular religious group or set of beliefs. There are also weaknesses to the Ontological argument as illustrated by Guanaco and Kant in particular. Gau nilo argued against Anselm's argument by suggesting that he can imagine 'The most perfect island' does this mean that that island exists somewhere?

However Gaunilos argument also has its flaws as he suggests that it is logical to think of an island that none better can be thought of, when this is not coherent as a more perfect island can always be imagined whether it has an extra tree or bird. Islands can always be bettered. Also just because the island can be imagined it doesn't mean it exists. A jump cannot be made from an idea to reality just as having an idea of God doesn't means he exists. Kant also has arguments that weaken the ontological argument. He suggests that 'existence is not a predicate'.

If it were it would either be true or false, God would either exist or not. However this is a contradiction as if God does not exist how can it possess any characteristics? Kant also looked for empirical evidence or experience to back up his arguments; no evidence is given for the ontological argument. This could be seen as a strength as no evidence is needed but it can be seen as a weakness as there is nothing to prove the Ontological argument to be true.

Further criticisms include the fact that no definition of God is given. Although we know what he is not we don't know what he is. He is only defined in negative terms. The Ontological argument is also based on reality but if reality is an illusion does God still exist and indeed what is meant by reality? Anselm said that the existence of God was necessary but no definition of necessary was given. Therefore how do we know God is necessary if we don't know what necessary is and if we don't know what it means to be a necessary being?

Following on this argument is anything necessary in existence? And if not then no arguments can be made on how important something is to existence. To what extent does the modern desire for empirical proof disprove the claim that the Ontological argument proves God exists? To a certain extent the need for scientific or empirical evidence does disprove the ontological argument. It is all based on opinions and theories. Just because Descartes or Anselm believes God exists, and they think this is proven through the ontological argument it doesn't mean it is a universal truth.

The Ontological argument is all based on definitions, of God, of existence, of necessity and not on proof or evidence for the existence of God. On the other hand the ontological is based on the fact that Gods existence doesn't need proof and the predicate of God implies his existence, as it is impossible for him not to exist. The existence of God could also be questioned as evil exists, and there is suffering and struggle in the world. If God were the greatest conceivable being, or a perfect being as the argument suggests then why would he allow misery in the world? This question is not answered in the ontological argument and so the proof of Gods existence is undermined. In this modern world scientific and empirical evidence is paramount.

This could disprove the Ontological argument as no evidence is even suggested to prove the existence of God. People are very focused on what can be sensed or experienced and this argument offers nothing but a maze of definitions and illogical propositions, and although it may explain what God isn't it offers no explanations as to what he is, or why he exists. Alternatively in this proof orientated world that does contain misery, people need to believe in something that is greater than themselves and if the ontological argument is looked at with a desire to believe that there is a God, proof will not be needed and the lack of evidence will not matter as it will be a question of faith or belief. Although the modern desire for empirical evidence does pose questions about the strength Ontological argument it is still a matter of opinion whether it is to be believed or not. I think that without proof the ontological argument does weaken in this day as people are not easily convinced without evidence, but the argument is not disproved, it is simply weakened.