Anselms Ontological Argument

Anselms Ontological ArgumentIn this essay I shall attain Anselms ontological arguing and look at how it whitethorn prove theologys representence. I will indeed go on to look at blames of the business from both Gaunilo and Kant to see if they raft show that the rock does non use and if non, why non.The core of Anselms ontological argument uses a reductio ad absurdum ad absurdum structure to attempt to prove the existence of graven image. He does this by demonstrate that if the negation of the conclusion is followed then this leads to absurdity (a false or nonsensical conclusion). Anselms argument is as follows If thitherfore that than which vigor greater preserve be conceived exists in the sense alone and not in human bes, then this thing than which nought greater stern be conceived is whateverthing than that which a greater do- naught be conceived. And this is clearly impotential. Therefore, in that respect can be no doubt at all that something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists in both the understanding and in naive realism. This quote is somewhat conf using collectible to the language employ so a simplified version may be of some use. The argument can be seen as such (1) theology is something which cipher can be greater than immortal is the being of uttermost vastness. (2)It is alone practicable that theology can exist in spite of appearance pragmatism matinee idol, no matter whether he actually exists inwardly reality, can exist inwardly some circumstances, therefore god may possibly progress to existed deep down our world. (3) without delay if something exists entirely and altogether inside the constraints of the sagacity and does not exist in reality just now is equable possible then it is plausible that that something which exists only within the mind may have been greater. (4) direct imagine that God exists only within the mind and does not exist in our reality (this can be seen to be God n ot actually subsisting at all), this allows for the idea that there is a possible entity which is greater than God. (5)So it can be a fortuity that there is a being or entity which is greater than God (6)Because God is the greatest and there is nothing which can be greater than God (as stated in point 1) then this argument has shown that there is something which can be greater than that which nothing can be greater than Because disceptation 6 makes no sense due to it being self contradictory God must exist not bonny in the mind but also at the selfsame(prenominal) time in reality. This argument has been given in many antithetic forms over time and I will cite one here to show that the interpretation given above is not too farthest removed from another(prenominal) interpretations. The following interpretation is given by PlantingaGod exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alo ne. (Premise)3.A being having all of Gods properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)4.A being having all of Gods properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)5.A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)6.It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of God.)7.Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)8.God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)9.Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)This interpretation basically follows the same structure as exploit and uses the reductio ad absurdum principle to prove Gods existence. Now we have seen how the argument works we must look at some criticisms of Anselms approach.One of the roughly successful and effective criticisms is given by Gaunilo. He attacked Anselms argument by stating that his reductio ad absurdum could be applied to many things and not just god. For this reason he believed that Anselms argument was not a valid or acceptable steering to justify Gods existence. Gaunilo apply the congresswoman of the greatest possible island (originally conceivable but we shall use possible for cohesions sake). He went on to support Anselms argument to the greatest possible island to prove the existence of this fictional island using the same style of reasoning which Anselm used to prove the existence of God. Now if somebody told me that there was an island greater than all other islands ever I would have absolutely no problem understanding the words which they used or the conceit they were attempting to divulge. But if they then went on to state that because I can imagine the island in my mind then the island must be possible then I would have serious doubts near this concept (and their sanity for that matter). What follows will be Gaunilos criticism placed into the format of Anselms reductio ad absurdum argument (1) bea ver island is an island that nothing can be greater than better island is the island of maximum greatness. (2)It is completely possible that scoop island can exist within reality Best island, no matter whether it actually exists within reality, can exist within some circumstances, therefore Best island may possibly have existed within our world. (3)Now if something exists entirely and only within the constraints of the mind and does not exist in reality but is still possible then it is plausible that that something which exists only within the mind may have been greater. (4) Now imagine that Best island exists only within the mind and does not exist in our reality (this can be seen to be Best island not actually existing at all), this allows for the idea that there is a possible island which is greater than Best island. (5)So it can be a orifice that there is a land or island which is greater than Best Island (6)Because Best island is the greatest and there is nothing which can b e greater than Best Island (as stated in point 1) then this argument shows that there is a possible island which is greater than the island that no island can be greater than. Because statement 6 is self contradictory then Best Island must exist not just in the mind but in reality at the same time. This argument seems to show that Anselms argument to prove God can be used to prove a lot of plainly misfortunate ideas, for example greatest possible bouncy castle or greatest possible goat.On first impressions it would seem as though this argument goes a long way to disproving Anselms argument for God but there is a problem with this. Gaunilos argument doesnt actually tell us what is wrong with Anselms argument although it shows that seemingly ridiculous conclusions can be turn out to be true it does not specify what is exactly is wrong or invalid about Anselms argument. It does not state that any of the premises atomic number 18 wrong and neither does it show the conclusion to be invalid. In accompaniment if Anselms argument is looked at in terms of logic then there is nothing wrong with it at all. Although this is the case, Gaunilos criticism is still a sanely weighty one due its ability to prove absurd conclusions.As with every remonstrance there is always a repartee so now lets look at some responses to Gaunilos weighty criticism. One of these responses focuses on the idea of the greatest possible island (or best island). It states that the greatest possible island can actually not exist. My vagary of the greatest possible island almost certainly differs from your conception of the greatest possible island. For example I may choose there to be a lot of animals on the island, chanceful and non stark and a lot of trees. Whereas you may prefer to only have non dangerous animals and mostly open areas on the island. This shows us that although playing fieldively there is the possibility of the greatest possible island on a large objective eggshell the re can be no such thing. In other words there is nothing within the definition of an island that allows for maximum greatness within a certain island. The oxford English dictionary defines an island as a piece of land surrounded by water. Clearly there is nothing there which could allow for one island to be greater than all others. It mentions nothing of the depth of water surrounding the island, whether or not there are inhabitants of the island, the size of the island etc. This is not the same for God though. Anselm describes God as maximum perfection of which nothing can be greater. The idea of God cannot be pulled away from the description of God. God is that which nothing can be greater than. This differs from the greatest possible island as the idea of perfection is a separate concept which has be added to the idea of an island. So it seems that although Gaunilos expostulation on first inspection is a good one it misses the point that maximum perfection cannot be disjunct fr om the concept of God whereas maximum perfection can be separated from the concept of an island.The final objection that I will look at comes from Kant, the very man who coined the phrase ontological for Anselms argument. Kants argument works by rejecting premise (3) (if something exists entirely and only within the constraints of the mind and does not exist in reality but is still possible then it is plausible that that something which exists only within the mind may have been greater). Kant states that the Anselms argument is based on the idea that a God which exists is greater than a God which does not. Kant believes this to be false and confusing. In this objection Kant states that existence is not a space which can be possessed, or not possessed by an object. He goes on to say that existence, if it not a property, is a concept which refers or corresponds to something within our world (universe). In other words if something exists then there will be an example of the thing that exists in our world. A way to illustrate this is by large(p) the example of a ball. This ball is blue, round, fairly heavy and has the diameter of 50cm. Now if I say that this ball exists it does not add any properties to this ball, evenly if I say that it doesnt exist it adds no properties to the ball. When I say that it exists I am merely saying that there is an example of this ball within our world. When one applies this to the argument we can see why Kants objection is so well accepted amongst those who reject the ontological argument. If existence is not a property then a God which exists and a God which does not exist are absolutely identical. Both are omnipotent, omnipresent and so on. If they are both identical then Anselm cannot claim that a God which exists is greater than a God which does not exist. If this is the case then the ontological argument fails as premise three is falseOne response to Kants objection is that existence adds something to our conception of a sub ject. If I read about paneling believing that he existed I would be very affect with his powers and what he has done etc. If then I discover that superman does not exist I may be disappointed and my conception of him may change. This then allows for existence to alter my conception of a subject thus allowing for a God that exists to be different, slightly, to a God which does not exist. This response seems somewhat weak though and I believe that Kants objection still stands.To conclude I have found that, through Kants property based objection, Anselms ontological argument fails to provide a decent way of proving Gods existence. Because Existence cannot be seen to be a property then the ontological argument fails. Gaunilo also provides some criticism of Anselm through showing that the ontological argument can be used to prove all kinds of ridiculous conclusions (if one accepts that the idea of maximum perfection can be separated from the concept of God). So because the ontological a rgument fails to defend itself adequately against criticism I believe that it fails as a way to prove Gods existence.