Ontological argument

Part A

The ontological argument was introduced by St Anselm of Canterbury. The argument starts from the point of an idea of God and concludes by stating the existence of such a being. The concept begins by defining God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived (Oppy, 2019).God is the epitome of the greatest thing ever imagined, thus exists as an idea in mind. Anselm pointed out that even if he did not exist, one could think of a greater being, supposedly just like God that one believes does not exist, but in this case, this supernatural being would survive.

However, there is no possible way to imagine a greater being than the being, ‘which is no greater can be conceived’ as this would be a contradiction to the premise. This would render the original assumption that God does not exist in real realm but only through imagined concepts false. This leads to the conclusion that God exists in reality and conception. The concepts thus explain that existence is one of God’s attributes. This attribute leads to the assumption that the unsurpassable perfect being must exist.

The argument uses premises containing definitions and relevant laws to coin its philosophy. The argument can thus be simplified as explaining God’s existence simply by reflecting on the concept of God. The mere concept of God provides proof of his existence.

The cosmological argument stems from the consideration of the existence and order of the universe. The basic premise in this argument is concept of the first cause. The history of this argument can be tracedthroughout history to Aristotle, where his main reference was that the existence of the universe needed an explanation.  The concept has evolved from the 9^th to 12^th centuries, where it was a subject of philosophy from Neoplatonism, early Christianity, and in medieval Islamic theology. Thomas Aquinas introduced the concept to medieval Christian theology in the 13^th century.There are two versions of the argument; the first cause argument and the argument from contingency.

The contingency argument has been credited to another philosopher, Samuel Clarke, who argues his concept on the principle of sufficient reason: whenever an object exists, there is always a sufficient explanation for its existence (Metcalf, 2018). Consider all-natural objects are dependent and that they can only be caused to exist by something else. Nature is composed of dependent beings who can’t explain their existence; hence there must be an explanation for theirexistence. This leads to the conclusion that there is a being outside of nature, a supernatural being that is capable of explaining its existence, therefore God. Clarke uses his description of dependent beings, independent beings, and self-existent beings. These arguments have also attracted criticism throughout history, stating their objections to these concepts, giving counter-arguments that seek to dispute the existence of God’s statements.

Part B

The ontological argument recorded its first objection from Anselm counterpart, GauniloMarmoutiers. His objection involved the use of the readers perceptive, where he asked readers of the argument to conceive an island more excellent than any other island (Feser, 2017).This objection laid bare the premises of the argument as being false as everything would have a most excellent entity. This objection is centered on the opinion that if the ontological argument is true, so are the many arguments involving the same logical thought, which would be untrue. He offered more insight into his objections by stating that the notion of God cannot be imagined.  He argued that many Christians would accept that, by nature, God’s nature cannot be conceived; hence, if humans cannot fully imagine God, the argument cannot be used. The fact that many philosophers and Christians cannot fathom the nature of God seeks to discredit the argument about the existence of a super natural entity.

The cosmological argument is objected according to premises. The first premise deals with the validity of the principle itself. When one does not accept the validity of the principle, then the argument is null. There has not been a philosopher that has proved the validity of the principle of sufficient reason hence putting doubt on this premise. Still, the majority of philosophers have the opinion that the principle is valid. The second premise argues that not every existence or that has ever existed cannot be a dependent thing ((Feser, 2017). The objections seek to show that it is possible to have a line of causality where dependent things can be traced back to other dependent things until infinity. The objection is further compounded by the statement that dependent things could have a collection of dependent things, which, too, would explain its existence. The first premise might be considered true, but the second premise is false; hence the argument is unsound.

Part C

The ontological objection against the argument depicting the existence of a supernatural being by Gaunilo was put to the test by Anselm himself argued that only a being with necessary existence could fulfill the notion of that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Contingent objects could be improved and never reach a perfection stage. There is also the devil corollary argument where using Anselm’s argument; there exists a being which nothing worse can be conceived. These logics drive to the conclusion that the objections succeeded in threatening the foundations of Anselm’s argument of explaining the existence of God.

The objection to the argument of consistency gives consideration when one considers the possibility that the universe existed just there. Philosophers have contradicted the notion that the universe needs an explanation. This idea has also been echoed by famous physicist Stephen Hawking. There are arguments that the contingency of the universe based on the contingency of the components which commit the fallacy of composition where it is mistaken that the components of a property are derived from the properties of its components. The objections lead to a diverse perception where the cosmological argument seems unfounded, hence not entirely explaining God’s existence.

 

 

References

Feser, E. (2017). Five Proofs for the Existence of God. Ignatius Press.

Metcalf, T. (2018). Design Arguments for the Existence of God. 1000 Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology.

Oppy, G. (2019). Ontological arguments. The Philosophers’ Magazine, (86), 66-73.