• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"The ontological argument is a poiri proof and as such can not inform us about the real world" - Explain and assess this claim.

Extracts from this document...


"The ontological argument is a poiri proof and as such can not inform us about the real world." Explain and assess this claim (30 Marks) An argument that is a poiri is one which does not depend on experience for it to be true but is independent of experience, it is innate. These arguments differ from a posteriori arguments, because these use empirical evidence to prove a proposition. It comes from studying our surroundings and the way things work. Philosophers use both of these types of arguments to prove the existence of God, Aquinas' cosmological argument is a posteriori as it uses the concept of design in the universe to prove that their must be a God. However Anselms ontological argument is a poiri, as it does not give evidence for the existence of God, they use the meaning of the word God to prove that God exists. But many philosophers do not believe that a poiri arguments for the existence of God can work as they are based on thought rather than fact. ...read more.


Kant criticised the ontological argument in his book 'Critique of Pure Reason'. He focused on the concept of analytical and synthetic statements, he used these to argue against Anselm. Analytical statements are similar to a poiri arguments because propositions are true or false depending on the word used, e.g. a female swan is called a Penn. This statement can be proven because if you look it up in the dictionary it will confirm it. These statements tell us nothing new and give us no insight into the real world. However synthetic statements are similar to a posteriori arguments because they also look for empirical evidence for verification e.g. all lions are omnivores. This can only be verified by observation of lions and therefore gives us insight into the real world. To say that God is a necessary being is an analytical statement, it tells us nothing of the real world and focuses on concepts rather than evidence. Kant changes this statement to "If God exists his existence is necessary." ...read more.


Plantinga claimed that there is a possible world where there is a 'maximal being' or as Anselm would say 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. But a being that has maximal greatness would certainly have to be present in every world. 'Maximal excellence' works along side 'maximal greatness.' 'Maximal excellence' entails omnipotence and omniscience and omnibenevolence. If 'maximal excellence' and 'maximal greatness' are entwined then god must exist in our world. When you consider all of these arguments it is easy to see why some people may consider the argument and others reject it. The argument has flaws in the fact that it is based on theory rather than fact and that it takes a giant leap of faith. But it also can not be entirely disproved, for there will always be people who understand what is meant by the term God and their faith is innate. There will also always be those who do not believe in 'god' and for them a sense of God is not enough to prove that his existence is real or necessary. Amy Murphy R.E ; The Ontological Argument January 04 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. The Ontological Argument - Critique

    argument, but for the existence of a perfect island - he thus states the absurdity of what Anselm claims, that anything perfect must exist. This criticism points to the main fault of the ontological argument, that it attempts to "define" objects into existence, something which is evidently illogical; using Anselm's

  2. Does the ontological argument work?

    in the world so any arguments for God have to be a posteriori. Aquinas also rejects the idea of understanding God because he says that God is unknowable, so a real understanding of God's nature is impossible to know. He holds that if we did know the nature of God

  1. Critically assess the ontological argument

    Thus, Anselm argued, that despite Gaunilo putting forward what appears to be a good counter argument he didn't actually demonstrate anything of meaning. Similarly Kant agreed, he stated that a person can define something but whether it fits into reality is a different question, saying something exists does not tell us anything about it.

  2. Synoptic Study, Satre, Engels and Marx

    to science, never a good position for a theory to be in. (I need to put a Marxist rejoinder in here maybe an illustration). Like wise Sartre falls in to this trap by saying man is driven only by his one wills and is free to choose anything.

  1. Deontology has many strengths but it is justifiable to reject it. Clarify and assess ...

    The most famous argument against the Divine Command Theory, however, is the Euthyphro Dilemma, named from Plato's Euthyphro dialogue which inspired it. The Euthyphro dilemma poses the question: "Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"

  2. Discuss whether the Ontological argument amounts to a proof (8 marks)

    He claims we have to establish the existence of something before we can say what qualities it has and not the other way around. So, if there is a perfect being then he must exist, the same as if we say there is a triangle, and then it must have 3 sides.

  1. Explain the Ontological Argument + Kant's Argument has Finished all Arguments

    This is the idea that brought itself into existence and is not time bound. The opposite of this would be contingency (a child depends on parents to exist). If God had a creator, then there would be something greater than God that exists but that is impossible.

  2. Explain Anselms ontological argument.

    Even a fool can understand this definition. (By fool Anselm most likely meant someone who does not believe in god, and so he said this to show that this argument is nothing of a complex sort but of a simple nature which can be comprehended by anyone, even a fool as Anselm said.)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work