Arguments for the Existence of God - Term Paper Example

 “The fool hath said in his heart: there is no God” (Psalms 14:1). Introduction The above biblical passage forms the basis of the ontological argument by the eleventh century foremost theological philosopher St. Anselm who formulated the definition of God’s existence christened “ontological argument” by its virulent critic Immanuel Kant. Although the definition has come under heavy criticism from its inception, it has endured for almost a thousand years fascinating theologians, philosophers and other scholars for centuries due to its unique and inspired presumption. This discussion will thus focus on the ontological argument as espoused by Anselm and the subsequent riposte from Kant plus some analysis from other major contributing philosophers on the existence of God debate. Anselm’s Ontological Argument An ontological argument is a priori premise and it endeavors to ascertain the existence of God purely through reason. These types of analysis entail no foregoing perception or familiarity of the subject matter to comprehend nor any empiricist and objective data. The ontological argument is therefore the philosophical reasoning for the existence of God popularized by Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his treatise the Proslogion. Ontology is derived from the Greek word "ontos" that signify "being" whereby a priori attestation is conceived. Anselm hence argues that since we all envision the existence of a supreme being - "a being which none greater can be conceived"; theist and atheists alike, then it is logical that God exists! The theists utterly while the atheists at least in within their minds. The contentious dictum that forms the basis for the ontological argument about the existence of God by Saint Anselm of Canterbury states: … 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. But obviously this is impossible. 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. St Anselm (1078/1903, 8), (Heathwood 1) From the above statement, Anselm’s ontological argument is thus discernable through the following set of hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: God can be defined as a being that exists more superior than any other that can be envisioned. Hypothesis 2: The being (GOD) exists both in our psyches and in actuality but also in the mind only. Hypothesis 3: Consequently, God exists both in our psyche and in actuality. The ontological premise as postulated by Anselm can therefore be summarized as follows: God is an entity that nothing more superior can be envisioned. In addition, atheists also uphold God exists as a conception in the psyche. Nevertheless, God would be an enhanced entity if existence were realism, rather than merely a perception. Accordingly, God’s existence must be an actuality, not simply as a belief. In the ontological argument of God’s omnipresent existent, Anselm therefore asserts that if there is no God, then logically it follows that there is greater being than God is in existence, which is unfeasible. Descartes an ontological proponent following Anselm’s premise argued on the implausibility of God’s non-existence. He asserted that God is part of the whole and without His presence; life will be inconceivable just like any shape or number. “existence can no more be separated from the essence of God, than the fact that its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle, or that the idea of a mountain can be separated from the idea of a valley" Plantinga’s Viewpoint Anselm’s ontological argument was supported and further expanded by Alvin Plantinga (1974: 97) who asserted that in any world, there must be at least a possible supreme being and subsequently this is replicated in all other worlds. Following this, Plantinga in disputing Kantian’s doctrine that Anselm alluded to a being as predicate argued that it is inconceivable for any world to lack a supreme being. Plantinga’s arguments can be summarized as follows: There is a feasible world that an entity has paramount prominence. Inevitably, an entity is supreme only if it has higher prominence in all probable worlds. Essentially, an entity is paramount eminence in every feasible world if it has omniscience, pre-eminence, and ethical flawlessness. It is impracticable for an entity with higher status not to exist in every likely world. Consequently, an entity of superior status exists in every feasible world. Critics of the Ontological Argument Many scholars and atheists have variously challenged Anselm’s ontological argument on the existence of God from many fronts and across centuries. These challenges have ranged from those of fellow religious scholars (Gaunilo, Aquinas) assertion that Anselm’s ontological argument is eschewed and un-biblical lacking any theological backing; and the atheists (Kant, Lotze) outright assertion that Anselm’s philosophical argument unsound since any such notion is a priori or abstract and not realism. Gaunilo’s Island Anselm’s 11th century contemporary monk Gaunilo was the first to challenge Anselm’s ontological argument; likening his conception of God’s existence like that of a perfect island formulated in a person’s mind could then be an actuality. Gaunilo thus argued it was absurd to define God’s perfect existence as figment of individual minds to reality as being illogical and ill conceived. Anselm rejoinder was that Gaunilo’s argument was superfluous since only an essential life form could have the utmost feasible reality since any other entity will always have another equally or superior form or being thus only God can have the sole perfect existence. Immanuel Kant - Existence Not Predicate The most prominent contemporary critic of Anselm’s ontological argument on the existence of God is the eighteenth century scholar Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his treatise, Critique of Pure Reason (1781). Kant’s assertion was that God’s existence could not be quantified like a chattel which can be added value due to its worth (perfection) and that can actually be verified in actuality by validation. Thus, one cannot define a car as that containing a billion dollars and hope that this can become a reality or an actuality. A quick verification of the truthfulness of the contention would confirm its veracity hence Anselm’s God’s definition was therefore not subject to a reality test according to Kant (Heathwood 3). Kant in disputing Anselm’s assertion of God existence as not predicate stated: ‘Being’ is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing.…. By whatever and however many predicates we may think a thing…we do not make the least addition to the thing when we further declare that the thing is. (Kant (1781/1929), (Heathwood 1). This argument by Kant was based on the assumption that Anselm in essence defined God as an inimitable property which is moot according to Alvin Plantinga, who argues that although Anselm never described God in proprietary terms indeed his perfect entity is proof of his being thus is unlikely to be just and abstract form. Kant’s main objection to the ontological argument is that human rationale is too inadequate to distinguish everything outside of human understanding. Kant thus argues that merely visualizing or thinking of something does not necessarily enforce its existence. Kantian philosophers have also disputed the notion of the existent of a “we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined”; terming this as a contradiction since the premise goes against the original presumption of the greatest being we can imagine. Thus, anything imagined greater than that can only be God, hence anything conceived in our minds earlier negates the argument and is a fallacy and in impossibility in reality. Kant’s edification of the seemingly circular ontological argument as a tautology is thus a crushing repudiation of Anselm’s basic premise. This can be summarized in the following three hypotheses: 1. The suggestion of a supreme being comprises the predicate of existence. 2. The notion of a supreme being perhaps contained in our psyche; thus, that entity should exist. 3. Consequently, an existent entity exists. Kant’s contention is therefore that existence cannot be value-added property as with other types of entity, like with dimension, quantity, appearance or shade that can be modified. The ontological argument fallacy of adding property to existence is thus misleading since if God is feasible, it is feasible that God exists – period! However, the embodiment of an entity and the issue of the entity’s existence are often two distinct concerns. Kant therefore demonstrates that there are two self-regulating problems: what is the Supreme Being’s essence, and does a Supreme Being exist? The ontological argument has however bundled the two distinct issues into a singular motion of preconceived existence, which was based on the contemporary medieval faith based philosophy. This can however run counter to pagan societies that have a basic simplistic conception of God that may even stem from natural conception (Oppy). Nevertheless, Kant’s protestations can be faulted in that his affirmations rest in his prerequisite of the suggestion that existence to be certifiable remote from the conjecture itself. This negates his argument since it would be immaterial to conceive of a non-existent entity. Therefore, if an entity that none greater may be envisioned cannot inherently exist, then a case out to demonstrate the existence of that entity cannot exist. Malcolm’s Preposition An interesting preposition is from another modern philosopher Norman Malcolm who dissects Anselm’s ontological argument into two. The first section followed Kant’s assertion of “propertied being” for which he likewise dismissed as an erroneous belief. The second segment of the original Anselm’s argument was however upheld by Malcolm affirming that the existence of a “necessary being” was a truism An indispensable life-form exist in all feasible entities, hence if it is possible for it to exist, consequently it have to be real. Therefore, if God is an indispensable entity, then he has to be present if it is plausible for him to live. Similarly, as an essential entity, God's absence can only be consequent if it is unfeasible for him to be real. Malcolm preposition in sustaining Anselm’s ontological argument or rather his assertion of the “second phase” can be summarized as follows: God is an indispensable entity. If God's existence is feasible, he has to be present. If God's existence is unfeasible therefore, he is illusory. God's existence is reasonable and feasible. Consequently, God must be real. Malcolm’s argument thus forces the atheistically inclined critics whose intellectual wiles are cloaked in philosophical guile to either utterly declare God’s existence as dubious or to assert it as being inconceivable or implausable. Conception of “Completely Evil Being” Anselm’s ontological premise that existence can be predicated has also been argued to only reinforce the atheists’ conjectures by alluding to a perfect being that consequently and conversely induces the likelihood of an equally “perfect evil” being in any existence. These contrasting arguments also provide a parody of the theological existence of God whereby any other being can similarly “exist in perfection” as envisioned in Anselm’s ontological premise argument (Oppy). Michael Martin has advanced this contention in his piece; Atheism: A Philosophical Justification whereby he argues that based on Anselm’s definition of the ontological existence of God, it follows that consequently the conception of “completely evil being” is justified. He thus postulates the following conception of a probable “Absolute Evil One”: Martin’s conception, the Absolute Evil One (AEO) as the utmost evil being feasible Such an entity has to be more evil if it exists in actuality than in the psyche only. Consequently, AEO exists in actuality! Thus (Martin: 82) concludes that, “One cannot prove the existence of both God and the absolute evil one, since they are mutually exclusive”. This is due to the fact that there can only be one perfect being hence Martin’s disavowal of Anselm’s argument is a mere fallacy. This divergent tautological argument follows that of Anselm’s contemporary philosopher, Gaunilo’s parody of a perfect island in line with the conception of perfect being existence in abstract. Nevertheless, it is implausible for agnostic individuals to envision such a scenario since they logically are dissuaded of the notion of anything being perfect and supremely superior in entity. Nevertheless, in support of Kant tenets, Heathwood argues that it is absurd for Anselm predicate and assertion of human beings further conceiving of an entity superior than the utmost conceivable being. This is the hypothetical atheists’ assumption following Anselm’s ontological argument which he countered Gaunilo’s riposte (Heathwood 4). The Problem of Negative Existentials and Meinongianism According to the Anselm’s ontological argument based on Psalms 14:1, signifying that it is inconceivable even for atheists to refute the logical conclusion of the realism of a perfect being existence. Inevitably, the hypothesis of negative existentials “proves” the fallacy of such prepositions since the notion of non-existence must refer to an already pre-conceived reality of God. Nonetheless, Kantian sympathizer Heathwood (8) has invoked the outdated ontological notion of Meinongianism that has the following two premises: There are two categories of being: existence in certainty and also in perceptive reality; Some matter exists in the notion devoid of realness; erstwhile matter exists both in actuality and in the factualism. Thus within the first hypothesis, the Niagara Falls exist both in reality and also within our thoughts; conversely Santa Claus as in the second hypothesis exists in our perception devoid of any definite reality. This philosophical language of submission infers Meinongianism, presupposing that an idea can exist in abstract or merely in our minds without it being really an actuality. Thus, as argued in Kant’s dictum and based on Meinongianism theory, Anselm’s argument of the existence of God may be faulty since it is possible to have two sets of notions that are not necessarily based on reality. However, the Kantian presumption of God’s existence as not being predicate can also be discounted by the same Meinongianism argument since nothing can exist without it being feasible as Anselm argues; there is an omnipresent perfect supreme being. Theological philosophers have also opposed Anselm’s logical realism perfect being existence preposition. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his epistemological writings, De Veritate proposed the "five ways" to explain the existence of God. Aquinas thus elucidated that God cannot be defined through reasoning and unlike the ontological argument through “experience” in the factual world. Nevertheless, the ontological priori argument as espoused by Anselm does not include most of the contemporary arguments for God’s existence posteriori theories including cosmic, causal, design or religious dogma but generally invokes intellectual or rational validation through rational explanations of an indispensable being. Unfortunately, Aquinas also advances a fallacy that we can wholly conceive the existence of God, which seems unlikely given limit of the human mind and knowledge. In Kant’s main riposte of Anselm’s ontological premise of God not being predicate, his argument’s main basis is rather the denial of not only the predicate but also the matter of God’s existence. Thus, he not only denies God having “property” but also the concept of his existence, hence refuting equally the subject and property. Kant therefore disproves the existence of the Supreme Being (subject) and the Supreme Being’s existence (predicate) hence ironically disputing the existence of existence (Stanford University). Conversely, Anselm’s main premise is for the “existence of a being…which greater cannot be conceived” thus positively linking the imagined existence of higher being to our actual existence – predicate to the probable existence of a perfect being than us whom non other greater can be conceived than the Supreme Being. In inferring to Psalms 14:1, Anselm is referring to the undisputable realism that all human beings logically at one time or the other conceives of a Supreme Being existence whether positively or negatively hence proving the axiom whether the person is religious, nonbeliever or skeptics. Conclusion Anselm’s ontological basis of the existence of God is basically a priori avowal that seems to be founded on the fallacy that all civilization worships the Supreme Being. This hypothesis can run counter to the pagan societies and add fuel to the atheists and agnostics anti-religious wiles due to its empiricist conjecture that God’s existence is predicate. Nevertheless, the ontological assertion of “a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist in reality” is a reductio ad absurdum since it negates the same idea whereby its very well possible to imagine higher forms that have no probability of reality like Santa Claus or Island as in meinongianism postulation. Nevertheless, the horde of philosophers’ assault led by Kant must concede his vast input in fortifying the debate on God’s existence for centuries. However as Kant has inferred, you cannot envision or visualize an entity into existence. References Himma, Kenneth Einar. Ontological Argument. 2005. 18 October 2010 . Malcolm, Norman. "Anselm’s Ontological Argument." Philosophical Review (1960): vol. 69, no. 1: 41-62. Martin, Michael. The Gap in Theistic Arguments. 1997. 18 October 2010 . Oppy, Graham. Anselm of Canterbury: a priori justification and knowledge. 2007. 20 October 2010 . Plantinga, Alvin. The Ontological Argument (ed.). London: Doubleday, and Co., 1965. Smith, Norman Kemp. "The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God (trans.)." Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Faithquest.com, 1999. Stanford University. Ontological Arguments. 2007. 18 October 2010 . Read More