Philosophy

Ontological argument can be defined as an argument that is founded on reason alone and not on observation of the world as is the case with cosmological and teleological arguments. It thus adopts the priori method that is mainly concerned with intuition and reason alone. The first proposers of this argument were medieval philosopher Avicenna and Anselm of Canterbury. Many variations were developed later. Ontological argument has been a subject of great contention and thus has been subjected to open criticism by many famous philosophers.

Ontological argument focuses on the concept of God and states that if we are able to envisage the greatest possible being, then it must exist. St. Anselm of Canterbury, in his book Proslogion written in the 11th century A.D., declared to have derived the existence of God from the idea of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm that if such a being did not exist, then a greater being-which no greater can be envisaged, and which exists-can be envisaged. This is illogical since nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. This can only leave us with the conclusion that a being which no greater can be conceived-that is, God-exists. Rene Descartes built for this concept, with the only notable difference being that he started from the concept of a perfect being.

Anselm presented the ontological argument as a section of a prayer that was directed to God. He started by defining God and the assumptions concerning the nature of God. It also proposes that God should not be conceived to exist only as a concept in the mind but should be thought of as existing in reality. Since it states that God is a being than which no greater can be conceived, God must exist in reality failure to which a being greater than God can be envisaged.

There are varied objections to ontological arguments. Certain objections apply only to certain ontological arguments. The existence of successful universal opposition to ontological arguments is still a matter of controversy. Some of the most notable objections to ontological argument were present by Gaunilo and Immanuel Kent. Gaunilo felt that Aselms ontological argument was not valid and thus had loopholes. Gaunilo was an antagonist of Anselm though both were monks. He harbored the idea that Anselms thought was best suited for proving the existence of objects such as the greatest imaginable island that we know do not exist. If this is the case then it can be inferred that Anselms ontological argument is not sound. But we are not able to explain the exact reason why this is so.

To evaluate Gaunilos argument, we can simply replace God from his context with Lost Island. Anselm defined God as that which is greater than which a greater cannot be thought (Jackson, para.6). This can be simply translated as the greatest conceivable thing. From Gaunilos context, Lost Island can be used in the place of the greatest conceivable island. If we substitute Lost Island in the place of God then we end up with a number of inferences. It can be inferred that if Lost Island can only be real in the mind, then it follows that the Lost Island does not qualify to be the greatest conceivable thing. Lost Island exists only in the mind this implies that Lost Island is not the greatest imaginable thing. But Lost Island happens to be the greatest conceivable island this implies that the greatest conceivable island is not the greatest conceivable thing.

The reasoning does not end up with the conclusion that Gaunilo had anticipated, hence the reasoning ends up in a self contradiction. Apart from being self contradictory, the result is most likely not correct. This kind of objection was referred to as Overload Objection since it cannot actually point out the shortcomings of Ontological arguments except that this argument would overload the world with numerous numbers of perfect things which are thought of to be in existence.

Immanuel Kent came up with the most significant critique of the ontological argument. He came up with many seemingly separate arguments but which appear to be interrelated. They are founded on his central characteristics between analytic and synthetic points of view. In the case of analytic judgment, the predicate conveys something that already exists in a concept and thus is a tautology. As far as synthetic judgment is concerned, the claim connects the idea to something outside that it does not logically imply. Kent argues that if you state that a thing exists is not to qualify existence to that thing, but instead it implies that the conception of that thing is demonstrated in the universe. Statements that take the form S is P are valid if and only if there is something that exists in the world and is singled out by the name S, and the thing singled out by the name S satisfies the explanation is P.

The claim that God created heaven and earth is valid if and only if there exists something in the world that is singled out by the name God, and the God created the heavens and the Earth. In a similar manner, a statement that takes the form S is not P is valid if and only if something exists in the world that is singled out by the name S, and the thing is able to satisfy the explanation is not P. The statement God is existent takes the form S is P this statement qualifies a property, existence, to a subject, God.

God does not exist takes the form S is not P which denies a property, existence, to a subject, God. God exists is a valid statement if and only if there is something in the world that can be singled out by the name God and God in this context should be able to satisfy the explanation exists. In the other case God does not exist can be a valid statement if and only if there is something that exists in the world that can be singled out by the name God, and The God in this context should satisfy the explanation does not exist. We can thus infer that God exists is not logically synonymous to God created the heavens and the earth. God does not exist is true if and only if a thing that can be singled out by the name God is in the world, and the God in this context satisfies the description does not exist. This is not possible as God cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Douglas Gasking, who was a philosopher from Melbourne, attempted to prove the non-existence of God. He reasoned that creation of the world is the best accomplishment conceivable. The value of the accomplishment is as a result of intrinsic quality and the capacity of its creator. The greater the handicap of the creator, the more remarkable the accomplishment. The most terrible disability of a creator would be non-existence. In this concept, if we imagine the world to have been created by an existent creator then we are able to conceive a greater being, that is, one who is responsible for all the creations while not existing. This leads to the implication that God does not exist.