The nature of Ontological arguments for Gods existence - Essay Example

Sur The nature of Ontological arguments for God’s existence Ontological arguments for the existence of God are based on reason rather than observation. This is contrary to other study approaches like teleological and cosmological that base they arguments on observation and sometimes reason. Ontological arguments do not look for the physical evidence to show the existence of God. According to the majority of their approaches, they believe that God exists just by thinking about it. Philosophically, such arguments have been termed priori arguments (Pasquini 23). The genesis of the majority of ontological arguments stems from the works of Anselm of Canterbury entirely from his work Prosigion in 1078 (Reeves 34). Today many arguments fall into the category of ontology all borrowing from the priori theory. Starting with the premises that not necessarily depend on the experience justification, ontological arguments go on by the pure logic methodology to draw a conclusion on the existence of God. Specific characteristics define ontological arguments. The ontological arguments use the problematical notions, necessity, and priority. This means that ontological argument fails to apply a fixed label (Oppy 34). Besides, the arguments use referential vocabulary (Nagasawa 23). This includes the names, indefinite and definite descriptions. Besides, they have a referential position. The majority of the things are black and white. A person can tell the truth from what is false easily without much struggle. For instance, it would be useless for a person to start looking for a four or five-sided triangle as one will not find the triangles. Most ontological arguments use this approach to explain the concept of the existence of God. In this, they go contrary to other arguments that entirely rely on at least a single empirical premise (Reeves 24). A simple ontological explanation is a preposition of being a bachelor. A bachelor is a male. Therefore, a simple mention of God means that Got exists. However, whereas the being a bachelor means one is unmarried, there is nothing to assert his existence (Nagasawa 34). Despite this, the ontological augments go on to show how they can deduce the existence of God from the definition of God. An example of an ontological argument is the having views that the existence of god to be absurd as the four-sided triangle or existence of the married bachelor. Knowing the triangle means as a three sided, and not four sided and knew the name of God means he exists without further questions. Therefore, based on this argument, if a person claims of non-existence of God they contradict themselves. This argument is self-explanatory that the claim that God does not exist to be a clearly false claim. this argument only focuses on the reason for the support of their argument (Pasquini 23). The ontological arguments define God as all-powerful and the beginning of perfection. For a person to earn this description he needs to have many things. This person has to be perfect and equally powerful. If people call what is just a shape that powerful and perfect, it is like giving a triangle a fourth side (Reeves 43). Besides, since the ontological arguments clearly distinguish between believers and non-believers, it holds that this will not make sense to those who do not understand these words (Nagasawa 23). Moreover, in this, the depiction of God being perfect cannot be accorded to something that is not unless it attains that threshold of perfection. Therefore, in this basis the ontological argument borrows from what people say about God to true by the virtue of their reason. A depiction of this is God cannot be conceived because he is grander than thy. God for one who is perfect could not be better than already he is. It is impossible to imagine anything better than he is. Therefore, being all-powerful and perfect are part and parcel of the entirety of the concept of God (Oppy 43). Therefore, God should be taken as a being that cannot be imagined better than it is. As the Oppy puts it, “God is that than which no greater can be conceived.” In this context thus, God’s existence becomes wide proven for their existence for its hard to conceive the presence of anything superior to God is. People thinking of Gods non-existence (atheists) are possibly confused. According to the ontological arguments, thinking of Gods non-existence means that God is not powerful and perfect. Believing that God is real means that a person agrees that he is powerful and perfects, he is better than he is (Pasquini 54). Believing that God exists makes people believe better as he is. In this context, an existing God is better than the God that does not exist. This is because one knows that God is perfects and all-powerful (Nagasawa 23). Therefore, for people who imply that God is not real can be equated to thinking of God not being perfect of powerful and a God that does not exist could be better than that exists. However, the idea of imperfect God is illogical as a four-sided triangle because his non-existence implies his imperfection (Nagasawa 23). Therefore, a slightest thought that God nonexistence in the ontological arguments is impossible. Therefore, ontological arguments can be described to be inductive in nature. The arguments draw from a broader perspective of the concepts. The inductive nature of their argument can be shown on their views. Conceptually, God is greater than anybody can be imagined (Pasquini 24). God as a concept exist in the human mind and every being in the human mind is a reality (Oppy 23). In the human mind, he exists as a perfect and all-powerful thing thus; nothing can be imagined to be greater than he is. This makes him greater than thou do. Therefore, thinking that God is not real means that the God in the peoples mind is imperfect which despises the real existence of God (Pasquini 34). On the virtue that, there cannot be a lesser God in terms of perfection and power, then the ontology argument draws on the existence of God. Another factor that makes this argument inductive is its controversial nature whereas it can be successful. In this case, if the argument will be considered successful it will be because of the attribute of God in its context (Nagasawa 23). It is the meaning of God being perfect that carries weight in the argument and reasoning of the ontology (Oppy 34). Consequently, in the inductive discussion that argument would indicate that if God were perfect than he is omnipotent, omniscient and even eternal. It seeks to show that God exist in the perfect way. Therefore, argument is of less about how God is like but more on his relationship with people Works Cited Nagasawa, Yujin. The Existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction. Taylor & Francis, 2011. Print. Oppy, Graham. Ontological Arguments and Belief in God. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Pasquini, John J. The Existence of God: Convincing and Converging Arguments. University Press of America, 2009. Print. Reeves, Robert Brockway. The History of the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God to the End of the Middle Ages ... Union Theological Seminary, New York., 2006. Print. Read More