Analyse the ontological argument for the existence of God. Do you agree with the argument? Give reasons for your answer.
2 Analyse the ontological argument for the existence of God. Do you agree with the argument? Give reasons for your answer.
The existence of God is an issue that has been debated over for centuries, the existence of a perfect being can be neither proved nor disproved. It is therefore a metaphysical question that can be evaluated and speculated over and over, and still a definite answer will not be found. Some philosophers can claim that no such entity exists, whilst some philosophers can argue that there is such a thing as a God - ultimate being. However their arguments, evaluations and formulas never will and never can be validated beyond reasonable doubt. The debate over whether a God does exist, or not, is as issue for 'metaphysics'. This is due to the philosopher Aristotle who when compiling his book, involving various forms of scientific findings, placed the compilation of certain questions that he dared to ask in the chapter after physics - Meta means after - so after-physics. It was within this chapter that the question 'does God exist' was put forward. Many attempts have been made by philosophers to prove that the entity known as God does exist, these arguments come under two categories, a priori and a posteriori. A priori is an argument that comes before sense experience, logic is used as a basis of the argument not sensory experience. A posteriori, however, is an argument that uses the human senses to establish a solid reason to verify God's presence in the world. The ontological argument falls into the priori category, this essay will evaluate the argument itself, and its strengths and weaknesses; in order to establish if can sufficiently prove the existence of a greater being, which we have come to know as God.
The ontological argument was a concept formed in the 11th century by an Archbishop named Anslem. His original argument was collected in his book 'Proslogin', but has been expanded upon and adopted by Rene Descartes - of the theory 'I think therefore I am' and more recently the modern philosopher Charles Hartshorne. It has already been mentioned that the ontological argument is and argument that can be classed as 'priori', this is because it does not use the world around us to prove Gods existence but relies upon our logic. The argument suggests that the concept of God itself, proves its existence. Anslem stated that all humans have the ability to imagine an all perfect, all powerful entity 'that than which none greater exists'. This entity however exists purely in our imagination, yet Anselm then went on to suggest that it is better to exist in reality than it is in our imagination. Therefore, a being 'which none greater exists' would have to exist in reality in order for it to the ultimate entity, as existence in fantasy would not allow it to have perfect the qualities of existence.
This argument is beguiling, firstly it is accepted that God possesses all perfection's. Everything about this entity is perfect, the argument then progresses to label existence as a perfection. Surely it is better to exist that not to exist at all? If this is accepted it can then be concluded that existence as a concept is perfect. It is clear that humans would rather be humans than a rock or single-celled organism, but would also rather exist in this basic form than not at all. So if it is accepted as truth that existence is a perfection, and ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
This argument is beguiling, firstly it is accepted that God possesses all perfection's. Everything about this entity is perfect, the argument then progresses to label existence as a perfection. Surely it is better to exist that not to exist at all? If this is accepted it can then be concluded that existence as a concept is perfect. It is clear that humans would rather be humans than a rock or single-celled organism, but would also rather exist in this basic form than not at all. So if it is accepted as truth that existence is a perfection, and that God possesses all forms of perfection, then God must exist. The ontological argument then states that since existence is part of the definition of God, this perfect entity is not just a being that exists, like humans, but a being that exists necessarily - it is not ever possible for God to not exist, just like it is not possible for God to have started and begun to exist. The conception of God must be a being which has and will exist for eternity. It is impossible to think of God without existence, in the same way that it is impossible to think of a triangle without all its angles adding up to 180'.
The ontological argument is a strong argument. Those to whom this argument has been explained accept without doubt that God is a perfect being, and also that existence is a perfection. The conclusion that God exists because existence is a perfection; can therefore not be criticised because the both statements have been embraced. The argument is logical, the outcome is based solidly on the fact that God is perfect, and that existence is a perfection. It follows a coherent path with no hidden formulas - the evidence and proof that God exists is plain for all to see. The argument not only establishes that God does indeed exist, but also that God must exist. To suggest that God does not exist, would be a contradiction, as part of what it is to be God, is to exist.
The ontological argument has however come under considerable criticism for claiming that existence is not a perfection. Many have suggested that it would be much better if cancer, aids, spiders did not exist. As result existence cannot be perfect. Yet in response, philosophers have commented that the conception of 'perfection' is not accurate. Perfection in this case does not mean, something that humans like or consider good, but something that is perfect in comparison to something else. The ontological theory places a strong basis on the Greek and Medieval ideology of hierarchies - where one being is higher on the scale than others. Indeed this scale is known as 'The Great Chain of Being', where every entity was placed on a scale with God (an entity that exists necessarily, and which is the creator of all other entities) at the top and non-existence at the bottom. The higher up the scale an entity is the more perfection's it was thought it have, God being at the top has all perfection's. The definition of perfection therefore indicates that existence is a perfection by definition. Those at the bottom of the scale, have no perfection's, the first living entity will moreover have one thing that those on the bottom do not, clearly existence. God being at the top of the chain has all perfection's, those that are apparent in the lowest forms of life to those a rung below him.
The ontological argument has received considerable criticism from some of the worlds leading philosophers. Thomas Aquinas opposed Anslems idea that God exist based on the unproved knowledge that this entity was perfect. He claimed that Anslem could not claim to know the characterises of God before proving a God existed, the personality of this entity should and would come after the existence of the entity had been confirmed and validated. He suggested that the existence of God had to be established in another way, and only then could a study of 'its' character begin. This criticisms can obliterate the ontological theory, but for the fact that amongst other Descartes believed that people are born with innate ideas. He claimed that as humans we have not been told what perfection is, nobody has ever been perfect, yet we are a aware that there is a perfect being in our universe. We recognise that perfection is a quality possessed by a being that is much greater than a mere mortal. It is therefore correct to assume that the entity that is all perfect is something greater than ourselves - it must be God. Nevertheless it has been argued that not every human or race of people believe their gods to be perfect. The Celts and Romans believed in gods that got angry, gods that fought with each other. As a result it should not be automatically assumed that perfection is a Godlike quality.
One criticism that has been very harmful to the credibility of this argument comes from Bertrand Russell. He debated that the concept of 'existence' was being twisted to fit the argument, and its real meaning being side-stepped. He argued that definitions do not always equal reality. To state that 'flowers exist', is to imagine a flower and then to discover that flowers in fact do exist. This method is attached to God. Yet, it is feasible to suggest that 'one-eyed beings exist', it is possible to conjure this image in ones head, but there are no beings in reality that fit this definition. This is the same for 'God exists', the concept of God itself can be imagined but there is no entity to which the label 'God' can be attached. In order for the ontological argument to work there must be some form of transformation from imaginary concept, to living reality. This transition can only be confirmed by the senses, by seeing, touching, tasting, smelling, or hearing. This transition as of yet has not taken place and therefore the ontological argument according to Russell is rendered useless.
In spite of the many philosophical opinions surrounding the ontological argument, the undoubted existence of a being 'that than which none greater exists' is still up for debate. One the one hand when following Anslems logic the existence of God seems to appear solid and unshakeable. God equals all perfection's, existence is a perfection, therefore God exists. Aquinas's argument is however also very strong. Anslem first gives God qualities even before proving 'its' existence, he proves Gods existence by these qualities, that themselves have yet to be proved as Godly. The argument seems to define God into existence by a logic that has rules which can be bended in order to fit the required pattern. Aquinas insisted that God be proved first without the aid of the qualities that could later be studied and proven. Russell, like Aquinas highlighted a flaw in the ontological argument. He advocated that in order to prove the existence of the entity known as God, not only should humans be able to imagine its existence, but that there should be some physical sign, or being to confirm it. He suggested that unicorns are fantasy beings that can be imagined, and have a definition, but they remain fantasy because the definition cannot fit any being that exists in reality. In view of the above evidence it is therefore clear that the ontological cannot ascertain the existence of God. In spite of the fact that the argument is logically sound, it relies too heavily upon God's alleged perfection. This quality is not proven through the argument; so therefore should not be used to aid its aims - to confirm Gods existence. Its existence, remains to be debated and argued - some arguments like Thomas Aquinas's 'chain of causation' offers a dependable foundation for the existence of a powerful entity, this is however not the case for the ontological argument which when evaluated has too many gaps to be a legitimate theory.
Word Count 1,807