To what extent is the ontological argument successful in proving the
existence of God?
Anselm’s ontological argument is a branch of philosophy which focuses on
the nature of existence, which can be explored through logic as opposed
to observation and sense experience, making it an a priori argument. He
argued that God is the greatest being and if he exists in our mind, then
he must exist in reality, as existing in reality is greater than existing in
our mind. He also argued that God is that than which nothing greater can
be conceived both in the mind and reality and Anselm argues that as a
result of this, God must exist. This reasoning contributes to the partial
success of the ontological argument in proving the existence of God
because it is easily understood due to its objective nature, instead of a
posteriori arguments which are more subjective due to the different
interpretations and misleading nature of sense experience. However, this
a priori reasoning may not necessarily be totally successful in proving the
existence of God due to it having no empirical evidence to prove that it is
reliable, but arguably this is not required as it is based on logic rather
than empiricism.
The ontological argument does gather success due to humans having an
awareness of the existence of perfection. Perfection is seemingly
interpreted as the greatest thing, in obtaining the optimal quality of
spiritual, mental, physical and material being. God also relates to being the
greatest thing due to him having already obtained the optimal quality of
everything and is therefore perfect, so because we have an understanding
of what perfection is we also have an understanding of what God is.
Descartes agreed with this view that God is the greatest most perfect
being, because he argued that not only are people born with the idea of a
perfect God imprinted in their minds, but that we also know God to have
all the perfections as his attributes because he is the supremely perfect
being. Therefore he must exist in reality because there is nothing else
that is as perfect as God and it is greater to exist in reality than in the
mind. Strength in Descartes’ argument comes from a further elaboration
, of his argument in stating that existence is an element of perfection,
therefore God must exist because he cannot lack any perfections and
used the example of a triangle. The three angles adding up to 180 degrees
cannot be separated from a triangle, just as existence cannot be
separated from God. This puts forward a strong argument for the success
of the ontological argument due to everyone having the ability to relate to
Descartes’ example of a triangle, and therefore being able to gain a
deeper understanding of the argument because they can relate it to
something that they know and are aware of. Humans having an awareness
of perfection could arguably act as empirical evidence because a large
number of people would be in agreement that perfection exists, and yes
there may be variability in their interpretation of perfection, but the
collective agreement of perfection existing is there and due to this being
in parallel with the existence of God would strengthen the argument.
Having said this, empiricists could argue that in order for evidence to
prove something it must be physically observable and a collective opinion
is not able to be observed empirically. This argument is also reliant on the
entirety of society having a belief of God, and this brings about the
complication of if they don’t believe in him then how can they believe he is
the greatest being - let alone agree that he even exists in the first place!
Russell agreed that the concept of God in Anselm’s argument is uncertain,
due to arguing that the greatest being cannot be proved through
reasoning, because there being no meaningful words that can be
accurately used about such as ‘great,’ ‘perfect,’ or even ‘existence.’ This is
due to the fact that humans can never really know if God exists because
he is not present in our everyday lives, nor do we have any empirical
evidence of him existing the only was he is present is through the Bible,
so it is therefore impossible to state any meaningful words about God
because we are still uncertain of whether he exists or not. If we could
prove that God exists in reality, then why wouldn’t everyone worship him,
why are there different faiths that worship different God’s, and how was
Anselm aware that the God he was trying to prove the existence of is the
one and only perfect God. This suggests that the ontological argument is
existence of God?
Anselm’s ontological argument is a branch of philosophy which focuses on
the nature of existence, which can be explored through logic as opposed
to observation and sense experience, making it an a priori argument. He
argued that God is the greatest being and if he exists in our mind, then
he must exist in reality, as existing in reality is greater than existing in
our mind. He also argued that God is that than which nothing greater can
be conceived both in the mind and reality and Anselm argues that as a
result of this, God must exist. This reasoning contributes to the partial
success of the ontological argument in proving the existence of God
because it is easily understood due to its objective nature, instead of a
posteriori arguments which are more subjective due to the different
interpretations and misleading nature of sense experience. However, this
a priori reasoning may not necessarily be totally successful in proving the
existence of God due to it having no empirical evidence to prove that it is
reliable, but arguably this is not required as it is based on logic rather
than empiricism.
The ontological argument does gather success due to humans having an
awareness of the existence of perfection. Perfection is seemingly
interpreted as the greatest thing, in obtaining the optimal quality of
spiritual, mental, physical and material being. God also relates to being the
greatest thing due to him having already obtained the optimal quality of
everything and is therefore perfect, so because we have an understanding
of what perfection is we also have an understanding of what God is.
Descartes agreed with this view that God is the greatest most perfect
being, because he argued that not only are people born with the idea of a
perfect God imprinted in their minds, but that we also know God to have
all the perfections as his attributes because he is the supremely perfect
being. Therefore he must exist in reality because there is nothing else
that is as perfect as God and it is greater to exist in reality than in the
mind. Strength in Descartes’ argument comes from a further elaboration
, of his argument in stating that existence is an element of perfection,
therefore God must exist because he cannot lack any perfections and
used the example of a triangle. The three angles adding up to 180 degrees
cannot be separated from a triangle, just as existence cannot be
separated from God. This puts forward a strong argument for the success
of the ontological argument due to everyone having the ability to relate to
Descartes’ example of a triangle, and therefore being able to gain a
deeper understanding of the argument because they can relate it to
something that they know and are aware of. Humans having an awareness
of perfection could arguably act as empirical evidence because a large
number of people would be in agreement that perfection exists, and yes
there may be variability in their interpretation of perfection, but the
collective agreement of perfection existing is there and due to this being
in parallel with the existence of God would strengthen the argument.
Having said this, empiricists could argue that in order for evidence to
prove something it must be physically observable and a collective opinion
is not able to be observed empirically. This argument is also reliant on the
entirety of society having a belief of God, and this brings about the
complication of if they don’t believe in him then how can they believe he is
the greatest being - let alone agree that he even exists in the first place!
Russell agreed that the concept of God in Anselm’s argument is uncertain,
due to arguing that the greatest being cannot be proved through
reasoning, because there being no meaningful words that can be
accurately used about such as ‘great,’ ‘perfect,’ or even ‘existence.’ This is
due to the fact that humans can never really know if God exists because
he is not present in our everyday lives, nor do we have any empirical
evidence of him existing the only was he is present is through the Bible,
so it is therefore impossible to state any meaningful words about God
because we are still uncertain of whether he exists or not. If we could
prove that God exists in reality, then why wouldn’t everyone worship him,
why are there different faiths that worship different God’s, and how was
Anselm aware that the God he was trying to prove the existence of is the
one and only perfect God. This suggests that the ontological argument is
