Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Ontological Argument

Strengths And Weaknesses Of The ontological instructionThe a priori and analytic occupation posed by Anselm states that deity must survive solely by definition it uses the pass on of paragon and aver of perfection. In Proslogian 2 Anselm defines perfection as being than which no greater plenty be conceived1.Strengths of the Ontological ArgumentThe briny potency of Anselms lineage is showing that the concept of paragon is not illogical, though explaining that everyone, rase a non-believer must have a concept of God in the read/write head and because of this have a concept of God existing in reality. By definition, God dirty dognot exist in the mind alone, as no greater can be conceived as something greater could be mentation of, namely that same thing existing in twain mind and reality. Hence, God must exist in reality by the convey of the invent God.The billet succeeds as it is deductive and clear culminations can be drawn from it, this leaves the argument with s ole(prenominal) one answer God exists. Because of its a priori nature It also offers an actual evidence for Gods reality which can be logically debated rather than relying on changeable evidence.Weaknesses of the Ontological ArgumentThe main weakness of Anselms argument is posed by Gaunilo of Marm divulgeier, a contemporary of Anselm, Gaunilo posed, exploitation reductio ad absurdum, that if the logic of the argument were applied to anything other than God, its conclusion would be unreasonable. The analogy of a perfect island was formulated, and using the same argument as Anselm reasoned that as the perfect island could be thought of, thusly it also must exist.Though Gainilos perfect island does have flaws itself as it pointed out by Rowe if we follow Anselms reasoning exactly, it does not appear that we can occur an absurdity from the supposition that the island than which none greater is possible does not exist.2It does suck up the many flaws in Anselms, mainly that somethin g cannot be thought into existence, as Russell states the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, except it is easier to feel win over that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the illusion lies.3Russell draws a clear distinction between existence and center and argues that the essence of something can be defined but this does not constitute existence.Russell argues that the word exist is used incorrectly in Anselms argument4. Russell states that to define something is to contribute an intention and to add existence would be an extension of that intention, Anselm does provide both as the stem which is said to exist, so that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist, as it is the totality of all ideas. Russell believes that this just now constitutes God being the greatest thing one can think of, but does not prove God exists in realily.Anselm responds to this with Proslogian 3, by explaining that something that cannot not exi st ( necessity existence) is greater than something which could not exist (contingent existence), That God Cannot be Thought non to Exist5. This however can be disputed is God is not thought of as a necessity and also as indispensable existence can only be applied to God then it is unverifiable.Another weakness in Anselms argument is posed by St Aquinas, as Anselm states God is that which nothing greater can be conceived then to register God in this way is to be equal to him, which Anselm cannot be, as he is human.Descartes begins his argument from the position that he has certain ideas that have necessary qualities necessary6meaning a priori. For example, it is necessary of a triangle that it has threesomesome sides and three angles totalling 180 degrees. Because these properties ar demonstrably undeniable, he could not have invented such(prenominal) ideas himself. These ideas possess their own undisputable nature which is, regardless of will, perceived in tell apartigibly and distinctly. Because of this, they must be true. So, if one is able to draw such an idea from ones mind, then whatever one predicates of that thing is truly a predicate of it. Because it is clearly and distinctly recognised that actual existence is a airscrew of God, actual existence is truly of Gods nature. Therefore, Descartes reasons, God exists.This argument only succeeds if existence is regarded as a predicate Descartes argues that God possesses necessary existence in the same way that a triangle does three sides this analogy is a main weakness of Descartes argument. It may be easy to understand what it actor for a triangle to have three sides, but if the properties of a triangle, such as the number of its sides, then the mental concept of the triangle changes (and becomes a square/rhombus/etc.) it is very difficult to see how existence, or the neglect of it, changes the mental concept of God, and so we may be reluctant to give voice that it is necessary of God. Kant arg ues that there are differences between something having certain predicates, such as in the case of the triangle, and something existing, in the case of God.Kant argues that the examples given by Descartes are of judgements7and it is not necessarily true that three sides exist at all. It is only necessarily true that, given a triangle, there are three sides consisting in it. By this understanding, existence is separate from the predicates that determine how a subject is.If Kants view is correct then The Ontological Argument fails, if existence is not a real predicate that is added on to the subject then to defy existence you take away the whole subject. The principle of the Ontological Argument regards this as being as an attribute.The Ontological argument can only succeed using faith in something which cannot be quantified, therefore can only really be used to prove the existence of God by someone who is already a believer, as Barth suggests it can tell what theists believe about G od but not whether he exists8. Because of this the argument ultimately fails, as it claims to be a proof but that proof will never be able to be measured.