Anslem's Ontological Argument

Anslem`s argument is that if a perfect being can be conjured up in one’s mind through understanding, then that being should be able to exist in reality. His argument is not sound due to the possibility of other things such as perfect islands [1] could also exist if one were to think about the subject being perfect in every way. Some philosophers such as Gaunilo do not refute that god does not exist but that Anslems argument is unsound and that a better argument can be created. Anselm's definition of God starts by saying that God is the greatest being we can possibly think of and if humans can think of such a perfect being that his very existence should be obvious. He uses an ontological position, saying that if the possibility that God could …show more content…
Gaunilo did not identify any specific fault with the argument, but claimed that there was issues in the argument as there is in most arguments, because if it is not, people should be able to use logic to prove certain things have no meaning to really exist in reality. For example, Gaunilo argued, it is feasible to create an argument that is identical to Anslem`s ontological argument that its purpose is to prove the existence of the perfect island: the perfect island must exist, if no island existed that was perfect, then anyone could think of an island that is perfect in every way and that would exist in reality and understanding, however such an argument is unsound. However, if Anslems argument works, then fitting to Gaunilo, the argument for the existence of the perfect island also works too. Both of these arguments both fit a logical structure, however if one of the arguments are false, then both of the arguments would be presumed false. Gaunilo’s argument for the existence of a perfect island, all though is clearly bogus; there is no possible reason to believe that the perfect island exists. However Gaunilo’s argument has just as many problems with in it as is Anslems argument does. If the argument can identify the differences between his argument for the existence of God both in reality and understanding and Gaunilo’s argument for the existence …show more content…
Anslems conclusion in his argument do not show proof for the existence of God. The reason for this is because the argument solely relies on the premises. The ontological argument is an argument solely from a position of faith in Christianity. Anslems argument is basically an argument that is more of a symbolic view, and less actual logical evidence. However, Anselm's own reason in his argument is told in circles with no clear conclusion. He starts out the argument that is true: God is a being than which nothing greater can be thought. He proves that it’s true only through that the premise is faith related which does not require factual evidence but faith. As can be clearly shown and dissected it is easily proven that Anselm's arguments are a religious because they are Christian in premise and not from real and proven facts that prove God is real so logical and sound evidence that disprove god are thrown out the door. Anselm's ontological argument. However both premises eventually support that God is an all-powerful entity that is greater than all beings.[1] In this way, Anselm's ontological argument is more attuned for believers in Christianity as it would probably offer more guidance for them while to those who are non-believers such as atheist would only see flaws and that the argument in fact does not prove that God exist since the argument lacks factual

Show More

Related Documents: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Ontological Argument Analysis