The Ontological Argument for Existence of God - Term Paper Example

?Running Head: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE The Ontological Argument for God's Existence I. Introduction In order to be saved and see light, the truths of Christianity should be known. The Word of God, or the Bible, is used to impart the truth to the people who walk in darkness so as to free them. Unfortunately, in this skeptic and materialistic world, it is a challenge to preach about the gospel to the individuals who are blinded by defiance to a change of heart or pride of logical intellect. Numerous people honestly shun the idea of a God and will normally deny Church Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Each Christian must be familiar and informed about the teachings of the Church and Christ. However, it is also helpful to be well-versed with the philosophical and theological writings of Church members. Most of these writings of Christian philosophers and theologians can shed light on the problem of evil, God’s existence and other hostilities that are rejected by modern non-believers. A concise philosophical foreword to intellectual arguments on the subject of God’s existence can aid in propagating the truth and representing Christianity as a logical religion and a lifestyle to other people. This study concentrates on three popular arguments concerning the existence of God – the ontological, cosmological and teleological argument. These evidences have constantly been disputed by different theologians and philosophers over the years. II. St. Anselm’s First Argument St. Anselm, a Doctor of the Church and Canterbury’s Catholic archbishop, was the first to formulate the Ontological Argument. This argument is conceivably the most bizarre and most intensely debated proof about the existence of God. It has gained the attention of prominent philosophers such as G.W.F. Hegel (who supported Anselm’s claim) and Immanuel Kant (who opposed Anselm’s claim). This proof is most renowned because it asserts that to establish God’s existence, one must depend solely on human reason and that there is no need for evidence or perception. This proof itself depends on the definite concept of God being a “perfect” being. The evidence of St. Anselm is summarized hereunder: In our understanding, God exists. In essence, this means that the idea of God is a concept buried in people’s minds. God is a probable being and might truly exist. This is because the concept of God does not yield internal inconsistencies. If a particular thing/being exists solely in our own perception and could possibly have existed in reality, then it might have been superior and greater. Simply put, this certain something that is existent in reality great or perfect. Something that only resides in people’s minds can become greater by existing for real. Suppose that, theoretically, God exists solely in a person’s understanding and not for real, then it is probable that God would be greater than he already is (following from premise 3). This means that God can become greater. This argument becomes ridiculous because God is already a perfect being in which a “greater” is no longer possible. This is where the contradiction lies. Hence, it follows that the notion of God existing only in a person’s understanding is false. For this reason, God exists both in people’s understanding and in reality. This argument is intriguing because it claims that God, who is perfect, should exist in all possible situations so as to gratify his perfection. A God who is existent in only selected circumstances and does not exist in others is a being who is less than perfect. III. Gaunilo’s Reply to St. Anselm’s Arguments Gaunilo is a monk of Marmoutier and a contemporary of Anselm. He was responsible for the creation of one of the most vital critiques of the argument posed by Anselm. It is a sensible to care that the contention of Anselm unlawfully moves from the existence of a concept to the existence of something corresponding to that concept. As put sometimes by the objection, things are simply defined by Anselm into existence and this is not possible. Gaunilo felt the same worry for he believed that the argument given by Anselm can also be used to show the existence of anything non-existent. Therefore, Gaunilo attempts to use the strategy of Anselm for deducing the existence of a perfect island, which is regarded correctly by Gaunilo as a counterexample to the argument form. This can be expressed as follows: 1) It is an intangible truth that a piland is the greatest possible island that can be imagined. 2) A piland is existent as a concept in the mind. 3) In reality, a piland is greater than a piland existing only as a concept in the mind. 4) Hence, if a piland is existent only as a concept in the mind, then an island greater than a piland can be imagined. 5) However, an island that is greater than a piland cannot be imagined. 6) Thus, a piland is existent. However, observe that the first premise of the argument of Gaunilo is incoherent. The problem is that the characteristics making an island great are not the type of characteristics that permit of theoretically maximal characteristics. No matter how greater an island is in a sense, it is possible at all times to imagine a greater island in that very sense. For example, if one regards an island to be great if its fruits are abundant, then no matter how great that island may be, it is still possible to imagine an island greater than it because there is no intrinsic maximum for the abundance of fruits. This, the concept of a piland itself is incoherent. However, this is not valid to the concept of God as conceived by Anselm. Characteristics like moral goodness, power, and knowledge, which make up the concept of a being that is maximally great, do have intrinsic maximums. For example, to be said to have perfect knowledge, it is necessary for one to know all and only true propositions; conceptually, it is not possible to know more than this. In the same way, to be said to have perfect power, one must be capable of doing everything possible to be done; it is conceptually not possible to be capable of doing more than this. Thus, the general argument here is that the argument of Anselm applies, if at all, only for concepts that are defined wholly in terms of characteristics that permit of some type of intrinsic maximum. As C.D. Broad points out this significant argument: The concept of something being the greatest possible to be imagined assumes that every positive characteristics exists in the greatest possible level. Now this will be pointless verbiage unless there is some sort of intrinsic maximum to the possible degree of each positive characteristic which is capable of intensity. This condition is satisfied with some magnitudes. For example, it is rationally not possible that any proper fraction should go over the ratio 1/1, and again, on a particular definition of “angle”, it is rationally not possible for any angle to go over four right angles. However, it appears rather evident that there are other characteristics, such as pain, temperature, or length, to which there is no intrinsic maximum. If any of the characteristics that are conceptually crucial to the concept of God do not permit of an intrinsic maximum, then the argument of Anselm will not work because the relevant notion of God is incoherent, like the concept of a piland of Guanilo. But insofar as the relevant characteristics that make a being great are restricted to moral perfection, omniscience, and omnipotence (which do permit of an intrinsic maximum), the concept of a greatest possible being of Anselm appears to avoid the concern expressed by Guanilo and Broad. IV. St. Anselm’s Second Argument There is a second ontological argument by Anselm in the Prosologium. This one does not rely on the claim that existence is a property, which is problematic. As such, the 2nd argument managed to avoid the number of objections received by the first version. The 2nd version of Anselm’s argument relies on two vital claims. Firstly, like before, it incorporates the premise that God is a being than which a greater cannot be conceived. However, this version do not base it on the claim that God’s existence is considered to be a perfection. The second argument relies instead on the claim what is perfect is necessary existence. The latter is an assertion that a being with a necessary existence is greater than one who exists but not necessarily. Another claim on this argument is that a being whose non-existence is logically impossible is greater than one whose non existence is possible logically. The second argument of Anselm is as follows: 1. If to be defined, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. 2. God is a being that exists necessarily in reality and is greater than one that does not exists necessarily. 3. Hence, if to be defined, if God is existing as an idea in ones mind but does not exist necessarily in reality, then there is someone greater than God that we can imagine. 4. However, we are not able to imagine anything greater than God. 5. Hence, if He exists as an idea in the mind, then God does exists necessarily in reality. 6. God exists as an idea in the mind. 7. Therefore, God, in reality exists. 8. This second rendition seems less susceptible to Kantian criticisms as opposed to the first. At the outset, necessary existence appears plainly to be a property, unlike mere existence. Notice, for instance, that the assertion that x necessarily exists requires several claims that link specific properties to x. For example, if the x’s existence is of necessity, then it does not rely on any other being’s existence (not like the existence of contingent humans, which relies, at the very least, on their parents’ existence). This seems to show that x exists in its own nature. But the latter statements clearly ascribe specific properties to x. 9. A claim that accredits a particular property alone can be the cause of other claims that accredit particular properties. Even though the assertion that x exists obviously requires that x possesses no less than one property, it is not entirely helpful. One cannot thoroughly deduce that any assertions that attach certain properties to x solely from either the claim that x has a minimum of one property or the claim that x exists; without a doubt, the assertion that x has one property as a minimum no further conveys a particular property than the very claim that x is existent. 10. Furthermore, one can reasonably contend that necessary existence is an example of great-making property. To say that a certain being exists essentially is just like saying that this said being exists eternally and is also indestructible in all rational possible worlds. 11. According to Malcolm, if a housewife owns a set of exceedingly fragile dishes, then being dishes, they are lower and secondary to other sets of dishes in every sense except the fact that they are not fragile. The dishes from the first set rely on gentle handling for their ongoing existence. On the other hand, the dishes from the second set are not. There is an established connection between the idea of inferiority and dependency and superiority and independence. To claim that something that is dependent on nothing is superior to anything that is, in any way, dependent upon something is somewhat in keeping with the daily use of the words greater and superior. 12. Yet, the matter is still very vague. It might be the circumstance that, other things being equal to each other, a set of dishes that is imperishable is superior to the set of dishes that is not indestructible, provided that they exist in the same world. However, it is difficult to view how trans-world indestructibility affects the greatness of the indestructible set of dishes in this world. In our opinion, there is no change when trans-world indestructibility is augmented to the set of dishes that is already indestructible. There is pretty much nothing that an indestructible set of dishes in all possible worlds can do in this world that cannot be performed by an indestructible set of dishes in this world but not in all other worlds. 13. The same is true with God. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and omnibenevolent, the personal God is in this world but does not exist in the others. It is difficult to put sense in the claim that the God referred to could be deficient in some respect. The indestructibility of God in this world is an indication that God exists forever in all logically probable worlds that bear a resemblance to this one in specific prominent respects. It is plainly uncertain how existence in various worlds that is unlike our world would make God even greater and more worthy of praise and worship. From our point of view, necessary existence does not add value and worth to eternal existence. If this said claim is true, then the second version of the argument of Anselm fails. V. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument St. Thomas Aquinas, a notable philosopher, theologian and Catholic thinker, summed up his cosmological argument through the theological masterpiece “Summa Theologia.” In here, St. Thomas enumerates five “ways” to know that God exists. The first three of this five “ways” talks about the cosmological argument: 1. St. Thomas Aquinas contends that there are certain things in the world that are in motion, or are changing, and that whatever it is that is in motion must have been made that way by another thing in motion as well. Aquinas says that “anything in motion must very well be placed in motion by another” and that this chain cannot continue to perpetuity, for it will suggest that there is no first mover. Thus, St. Thomas disputes that, to remove the never-ending string of motions, there should be a source of all the motion and the first mover – God. 2. The second way provided by St. Thomas is analogous to the first way. In here, it is said that any object, event or circumstance is not capable of changing itself but can change others (concept of efficient cause). Given that there is also a chain of causes and that this chain cannot be infinite (refer to premise #1), then all these causes must be attached to an initial cause. This first cause is God. 3. The third way of knowing God’s existence also uses the idea of chain of causes. Aquinas writes that all the things in the world owe their existence to a different thing/being. He referred to this as the way of “possibility and necessity,” which means that everything that is made possible credit their existence to another that pre-existed. With this line of reasoning, the pre-existing thing or being can only be God since he has his personal necessity and does not require another pre-existing thing to create him. God is the source of all things that are existence. Another shorter rendition of the cosmological argument can be expressed as: Every being (that exists or existed) is either a self-existent or dependent being. Not all beings are capable of being dependent Therefore, a self-existent being exists. Lastly, there is a third interpretation of this argument, which was derived from Dr. Tom Morris’ “Philosophy for Dummies”, that: The existence of something is understandable and logical only if there is an explanation. Therefore, the universe’s existence is either: 1. illogical or 2. has an explanation No reasonable human should accept argument (2a) by definition of prudence and rationality A rational person should agree (2b) that there is some explanation for the universe’s existence. There are only three types of explanations: a. Personal – explanations that refer to powers, desires, intentions and beliefs of a certain personal agent. b. Scientific – physical conditions and related laws produce the event being explained c. Essential – the essence of the event/thing being explained requires its qualities or essence (for instance, if one asks why there are 3 sides in a triangle, the response is that it is the necessity and essence for a triangle to have 3 sided because of its definition. The explanation regarding the universe’s existence cannot be in a scientific nature because there cannot be original physical laws and conditions that are detached from what should be explained. Even the famous Big Bang theory is unsuccessful in explaining the universe’s existence because modern science is incapable of explaining the source of the initial Big Bang singularity. The universe as a whole of all the natural laws and conditions is impossible to be explained, except if there is an Archimidean reference point beyond the system. The universe’s existence also cannot be defined using the essential type of explanation due to the fact that the universe cannot exist out of necessity. In fact, it is probable for the universe not to exist (if the Big Bang theory had been somewhat altered, it is also possible for large-scale edifices to not exist as well). Therefore, the universe is something that should essentially exist. Since the existence of the universe cannot be explained both in a scientific and essential nature, there is only one other explanation left that a rational person must believe – a personal explanation. No other personal agent apart from God is capable of producing the whole universe. As a result, a rational person must believe in the existence of God. The Teleological Argument The teleological argument, also known as argument from design, is also encapsulated in Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. In an excerpt of Summa, it was said that the fifth way of proving God’s existence is derived from the governance of the world. Things around us that lack intelligence (e.g. natural bodies) work for an end. This can be clearly seen from their acting always (or virtually always) in similar ways in order to gain the best outcome. Therefore, it is obvious that they achieve their end deliberately and not by chance. Now, anything that lacks intelligence cannot act on itself towards an end, unless it is managed and controlled by a specific being that is bestowed with intelligence and knowledge. Consequently, an intelligent being is existent and controls all natural things towards their respective ends. This being is God. This is perhaps the most ordinary kind of reasoning for God’s existence. The typical theist will contend for God’s existence using the teleological argument. V. Conclusion Needless to say, these three aforementioned evidences have their fair share of supporters and opponents. These evidences do not distinctly and ultimately establish God’s existence because they can very well be contended. Even the supreme truth can be concealed because of blindness of pride or innocent ignorance. Belief in God is based on faith and is the foundation of ultimate happiness. All the same, these three evidences may help depict Christianity as a religion that is based on reason as well as an incessantly controversial one. References Anselm, St.(1962). Anselm’s Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co. Aquinas, Thomas, St.(1981). Summa Theologica (1a Q2), “Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident.Thomas More Publishing. Iannnone, A. (1993). Through Time and Culture Introductory Readings in Philosophy. Pearson. Kleiman, L. & Lewis, S. (1992) Philosophy: An introduction through literature (St. Paul, MN, Paragon House). Kabayadi, T. Gaulino’s Contributions to the Ontological Argument of St. Anselm. Read More