Does the Ontological Argument work?
The Ontological argument is an a priori and depends on whether you would take a non-realist or realist view of the argument. If one were to use a realist view of the argument it would collapse almost every time but if you were to use a non-realist view then the Ontological argument makes sense.
Whereas the cosmological argument is an a posteriori, which is a synthetic argument and derives from experience to prove a statement or a fact, the Ontological argument is an a priori, which involves analytical statements that are independent of experience.
St Anselm wrote in his book, the Proslogian in 1078 in the second chapter that is often known as his first argument, "And indeed we believe you [God] are something greater that which cannot be thought". The argument was a realist argument, realist argument is a statement that corresponds with reality and is true or false depending on the circumstance and if you buy into the ontological argument.
Both theists and atheists understand the definition that Anselm gave. He said that it is something to exist in the mind alone but it is so much better to exist in reality, imagining a piece of cake in your mind, wouldn't it be greater if it were there in real life so you could eat it? If you were to apply the same principle to the statement, "God Exists" then analytically the statement makes sense. This is because we can find that the statement is true by merely analysing what it means to be God, which is perfection that would necessarily mean that He exists because it is in the nature and definition of God to exist. So to Anselm, it would make no logical sense to deny God if one were to understand what God is, because once we have understanding of something, we will never have a different perception of the ting we understand.
The Ontological argument is an a priori and depends on whether you would take a non-realist or realist view of the argument. If one were to use a realist view of the argument it would collapse almost every time but if you were to use a non-realist view then the Ontological argument makes sense.
Whereas the cosmological argument is an a posteriori, which is a synthetic argument and derives from experience to prove a statement or a fact, the Ontological argument is an a priori, which involves analytical statements that are independent of experience.
St Anselm wrote in his book, the Proslogian in 1078 in the second chapter that is often known as his first argument, "And indeed we believe you [God] are something greater that which cannot be thought". The argument was a realist argument, realist argument is a statement that corresponds with reality and is true or false depending on the circumstance and if you buy into the ontological argument.
Both theists and atheists understand the definition that Anselm gave. He said that it is something to exist in the mind alone but it is so much better to exist in reality, imagining a piece of cake in your mind, wouldn't it be greater if it were there in real life so you could eat it? If you were to apply the same principle to the statement, "God Exists" then analytically the statement makes sense. This is because we can find that the statement is true by merely analysing what it means to be God, which is perfection that would necessarily mean that He exists because it is in the nature and definition of God to exist. So to Anselm, it would make no logical sense to deny God if one were to understand what God is, because once we have understanding of something, we will never have a different perception of the ting we understand.