Analyse the ontological argument for the existence of God. Do you agree with the argument? Give reasons for your answer.

Authors Avatar


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.
Join now!


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