The Ontological argument will never be of any use when trying to prove Gods existence. Discuss. (17 marks).
"The Ontological argument will never be of any use when trying to prove Gods existence". Discuss. (17 marks).
Many people the ontological argument is a pointless and weak attempt at proving the existence of God. They argue it has to many problems and unanswered questions to be of any use to us today. However, some find it a very encouraging and up-building theory, which strengthens their belief that there is a God for us to worship, and share a loving relationship with. The question all of us are concerned with however, is 'can we use the ontological argument to prove Gods existence today?' To decide whether it will be of any use, we need to look at its problems and its strengths to see if we can logically come to the same conclusion Anselm and Descartes arrived at.
Using an A priori argument, monk Gaunilo came up with the first reply to Anselm's theory. He said that we 'cannot define something into existence' using the metaphor of an island, which he said if it was perfect then this island had to exist. However in Anselms reply he said that 'God is a special case' in that this only applies to necessary beings and to something that has all the perfection's. Gods perfection is ultimate so nothing more can be added to it, unlike an island where more things such as more beaches could be added to improve it. God is immutable, is perfection is unchangeable and unique and this is why the ontological argument can only apply to Him.
Many people the ontological argument is a pointless and weak attempt at proving the existence of God. They argue it has to many problems and unanswered questions to be of any use to us today. However, some find it a very encouraging and up-building theory, which strengthens their belief that there is a God for us to worship, and share a loving relationship with. The question all of us are concerned with however, is 'can we use the ontological argument to prove Gods existence today?' To decide whether it will be of any use, we need to look at its problems and its strengths to see if we can logically come to the same conclusion Anselm and Descartes arrived at.
Using an A priori argument, monk Gaunilo came up with the first reply to Anselm's theory. He said that we 'cannot define something into existence' using the metaphor of an island, which he said if it was perfect then this island had to exist. However in Anselms reply he said that 'God is a special case' in that this only applies to necessary beings and to something that has all the perfection's. Gods perfection is ultimate so nothing more can be added to it, unlike an island where more things such as more beaches could be added to improve it. God is immutable, is perfection is unchangeable and unique and this is why the ontological argument can only apply to Him.