Download A Critical overview on the Ontological Argument

A Critical overview on the Ontological Argument
Before one can even begin to critique the Ontological argument for God's
existence, one must understand exactly what ontological is. Ontological is an area
of philosophy that studies the nature of existence or being as such. The
Ontological argument is based on the very being of god. Basically ontological
arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary
premises to the conclusion that God exists. The ontological argument is most
commonly associated with St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, AD 1093 to
1109.
Anselm argues that we can conceive God as "a being than that which none
greater can be conceived." Yet, if we conceive such a being as existing only in the
understanding, a greater being could be conceived, namely, one that also exists
in reality. Anselm's strategy, then is to move from the admission that we have a
concept of "a being than which none greater can be conceived" to the conclusion
that God cannot be conceived not to exist.
Below are Anselm's own words, quoted from Proslogion, chapter 2, 1078.
"We believe that God is a being than that which none greater can be thought.
Now even a fool knows that 'a being which none greater can be thought' exists at
least in his mind. But clearly, 'that than which a greater cannot be thought'
cannot exist in the mind alone. It could be thought of as existing in reality as
well, and that would be greater. In which case, 'that than which a greater cannot
be thought' would be that than which a greater can be though! Since this is
impossible, there obviously exists, both in the mind and in reality, something
than which a greater cannot be thought."
The words of Anselm are rather complicated. But in short ‘God' refers to the
perfect being. But if this did not exist, it would not be perfect. Therefore it must
exist. Anselm also maintains that it is possible to argue the existence of God
through the actual meaning of the word `God'. The aim of this essay is to write a
critical overview of the Ontological argument.
Philosophers have been critiquing this theory for a number of years. In Anselm's
day, a monk, Gaunilo, accused him of making an illegitimate jump from existence
in the mind to existence in reality. On such an argument, he said one could define
anything into existence. As the argument states that if you suppose something
exists in understanding, then is can actually exist in reality, and will then be even
better than the one in understanding. A very good example of this would be; I
could imagine the perfect holiday island, as it exists in my understanding, as I
can imagine it, it may therefore exist in reality, and be even better than the one
in my understanding.
On this matter I personally agree with Gaunilo, that it is simply impossible to leap
from the existence in the mind into the existence in reality. This is simply
impossible in my opinion.
A very simple version of the Ontological argument would say that the word 'God'
refers to the perfect being. But if this did not exist, it would not be perfect.
Therefore it must exist. Simply meaning that God is too good not to be real. My
first personal criticism to the argument is; Why? If he didn't exist, then why
wouldn't it be perfect? My second personal criticism to the argument is that; If
God does exist, and as he exists in reality, not just understanding, he would
therefore be perfect, and there would be no better being. Well, what I find hard
to believe is that he is perfect, surely if god exists in reality, we would be allowed
or able to see or consider his imperfections, meaning that god would not then be
perfect, and the whole ontological argument is flawed.
Another argument that a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant insisted
strongly on was that, the word 'exists' may not be used as a simple quality of
god. The word 'God' may indeed include goodness, almightiness, wisdom etc, but
not 'existence' and therefore the argument that it is possible to dispute the
existence of god through the actual meaning of the word `god' is also completely
flawed. I also strongly agree with Immanuel Kant. It is simply impossible to
define existence of something through the actual meaning of the word. For
example I could be trying to define the existence of something lets call it 'X' by
this Anselm's argument, I could actually argue the existence of 'X' through the
actual meaning of 'X.' Personally I feel this to be ridiculous, one cannot define the
existence of something through the meaning of the very thing trying to be
proved, it just isn't possible, and Immanuel Kant's Criticism explains exactly this.
A great example which Immanuel Kant used was '£100 in my pocket does not
mean they exist in my wallet.' It just shows how we need reasons for believing
something to exist, for example, one needs reasons for believing the existence of
god, and not simply a definition of what god might be if he existed. And quite
frankly, Anselm's ontological argument does not have reasons to explain the
existence of god, and it is due to that that I cannot believe or agree with any of
his ontological argument.
To conclude this critical overview of Anselm's ontological argument. I will say that
personally I fail to see any sense in his argument. This being because; all of the
main arguments can be flawed, and this is because there is no reasoning. One
needs some sort of reasoning to believe an argument; this argument simply gives
a definition of what god might be if he did exist, no reasons for his existence.