Analysis of Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay

This effrontery does non state that beau ideals strengths as this telephone circuit is to prove his experienceence, non whether or not theology is solely in all in all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. The second inaugurate meaning this sterling(prenominal) possible macrocosm is either an imaginary being that unriva conduct has thought of or, a being that we not only is not only thought of but also exists. The third premise and its sub expound states because existing in reality is greater than existing in thought, thence(prenominal) the divinity fudge we have thought of exists in reality or at that place must(prenominal) be a greater, or more perfect, being that does exist and that being is God.This leads to the resultant, if you accept the premises then you accept the existence of the greatest being possible, God. This concept of Gods existence is also led with the idea that God is a necessary being, a being that is not dependent of or sothing greater in r ig to exist. If God relied on another(prenominal) being, like how a children rely on p arents to conceive them, then this being called God is not God because it would be imperfect. Therefore, in that respect must be another to call God that meets all the requirements for perfection.One of the first familiar objections was created by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. The premise and conclusion to Gaunilos pedigree is identical to Anselms argument except with the replacement of the rallying cry God with the Lost island and the word being with island. As simple as that, though Gaunilos argument is completely absurd, Gaunilos reductio ad absurdum also proves to be as deductively valid as Anselms argument. However, this Lost Island could in no stylus exist. The absurdity and validity of the lost island quickly brought up capitulums as to how Anselms Argument cannot be absurd.Anselms argument was not proven shut-in until Immanuel Kant, a german philosopher during the 18th century, proposed a n objection that would be the decisive run off to the Ontological argument (Immanuel Kant. Wiki). Kants objection is how existence is not a predicate (Mike, screen 25). A predicate is used to draw and quarter something the field of force (this being God in Anselms Argument) is doing. In Aselms Argument, Anselm premise rely on that being conceived and existing in reality is something that describes God. This rationality does not follow because to exist or conceive does not describe the subject, it only tells us whether it exist or not.Much like how put on characters do not exist, describing cartoon for example would tell us enlarge of what this cartoon looks like, what its habits are and ballpark antics it goes with, but not whether it exists or not. The question of existence must fall in a separate argument that does not define the character. As in that respect are Arguments to prove God, there are debatable arguments to disprove the God. The First version of The Argument f rom detestation goes as follow 1. If God were to exist, then that being would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. 2. If an all-PKG existed, then there would be no wickedness. . There is sin. Conclusion Hence, there is no God (Sober, 109) The first premise is the definition of what God would be if he were to exist. That is a being that has the power to do anything, had knowledge of everything throughout the span of measure and is in all ways good. The second premise is created with the first premise in mind. To expand on the second premise it states, if God were all-powerful he could stop any form of evil from happening, if he is all knowing then he has knowledge of when evil will transcend and if he is all-good then God would stop all evil from happening.If immortal cannot stop all evil from happening then the definition of God must be incorrect. He then must not be powerful enough to stop all evil, and/or he doesnt know when evil until it has already occurred and/or g ood is not all good in that God does not wish to stop all evils. The third premise is stating the fact that there is evil in the world. The conclusion derived since that there is evil, then is what whitethorn be defined as God must be lacking in one or both of his qualities and therefore God, by definition, does not exist at all.In order for God to be compatible with evil, God must only will the evils that would, in turn, lead to a greater amount of good and must make water the route that leads to the least amount of evil to gain the greatest amount of good. The soul building defense was created in mind that evil and God co-exist in our world. The defense is that without any evil in the world, our souls would not nurture, or, understand the concept of evil. This defense does not hold true because there has been many evils in the world that seem unacceptable, even though it may have been for the purpose of soul building.God, and all-good being, would then only allow the evils that are essential in soul-building. This would only mean that evil that man commits against man. The understanding for this is because anything that happens in nature exceeds soul-building essentials. Another defense is God having given us free will, humans ultimately are the causes of this evil. That is true but the common objection to this is that human do more than enough evil to ourselves, it is dismission too far to have God throw tornados, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes at us too. At what point do human have much(prenominal) control over nature.The last defense is that God simply kit and boodle in mysterious ways. Who can explain why natural events take so many lives and injure many others or why some children have to go through great deals of suffering and live through it? It is Gods way and ultimately, no matter how incomprehensible the evil is, it is for the greater good. Certainly the question to Gods existence has been pondered upon by philosophers for over a very lo ng period of time with no progress as whether God exists or not. The ontological argument created by Anselm withstood a great deal of criticism until it was disproved by Kant over 600 years after the fact.