As the objection is sometimes put, Anselm simply defines things into existence-and this cannot be done.Gaunilo shared this worry, believing that one could use Anselm's argument to show the existence of all kinds of non-existent things: Now if some one should tell me that there is …Tags: Modern Love Essays Ny TimesBuy Cheap Essay UkSharepoint Case Study BankResearch Paper On FarmingEssay Government Intervention MarketResearch Paper On SkateboardingThe Art And Craft Of Problem Solving PdfUnder Cope Heaven Essay
The ontological argument, then, is unique among such arguments in that it purports to establish the real (as opposed to abstract) existence of some entity.
Indeed, if the ontological arguments succeed, it is as much a contradiction to suppose that God doesn't exist as it is to suppose that there are square circles or female bachelors.
The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form: Intuitively, one can think of the argument as being powered by two ideas.
The first, expressed by Premise 2, is that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates all of the perfections.
For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.…
Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.I need to go out into the world and conduct some sort of empirical investigation using my senses.Likewise, if I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses don't exist, I must do the same.There is, of course, this difference: whereas the concept of a bachelor explicitly contains the proposition that bachelors are unmarried, the concept of God does not explicitly contain any proposition asserting the existence of such a being.Even so, the basic idea is the same: ontological arguments attempt to show that we can deduce God's existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God.understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding.…And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone.Normally, existential claims don't follow from conceptual claims.If I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses exist, it is not enough just to reflect on the concepts.Most of the arguments for God's existence rely on at least one empirical premise.For example, the "fine-tuning" version of the design argument depends on empirical evidence of intelligent design; in particular, it turns on the empirical claim that, as a nomological matter, that is, as a matter of law, life could not have developed if certain fundamental properties of the universe were to have differed even slightly from what they are.