Analysis of Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay

This premiss does non state that theologys strengths as this motive is to attest his conception, non whether or non God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all- veritable(p). The second set forth means this greatest possible universe is either an imaginary macrocosm that one has thought of or, a world that we not further is not only thought of plainly alikewise exists. The third premise and its hit objet dart premises states because existing in verity is greater than existing in thought, then(prenominal) the God we attain thought of exists in reality or there mustiness be a greater, or more perfect, being that does exist and that being is God.This leads to the conclusion, if you accept the premises then you accept the globe 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 something greater in order to exist. If God relied on another being, like how a childr en rely on parents to conceive them, then this being called God is not God because it would be imperfect. Therefore, there must be another to call God that meets all the requirements for perfection.One of the startle popular objections was created by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. The premise and conclusion to Gaunilos argument is very(a) to Anselms argument except with the replacement of the word 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 samples to be as deductively valid as Anselms argument. However, this Lost Island could in no way exist. The absurdity and validity of the lost island quickly brought up questions as to how Anselms ancestry cannot be absurd.Anselms argument was not turn up invalid until Immanuel Kant, a german philosopher during the 18th century, proposed an objection that would be the determinative blow to the Ontological argument (Immanuel Kant. Wik i). Kants objection is how existence is not a predicate (Mike, screen 25). A predicate is used to run along something the subject (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 fictional characters do not exist, describing cartoon for example would tell us details of what this cartoon looks like, what its habits are and common antics it goes through, but not whether it exists or not. The question of existence must fall in a assure argument that does not define the character. As there are Arguments to prove God, there are debatable arguments to disprove the God. The First version of The Argument from Evil 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 aversion. . There is mephistophelean. Conclusion Hence, there is no God (Sober, 109) The beginning premise is the translation 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 pass everywhere of magazine and is in all ways good. The second premise is created with the first premise in learning ability. To expand on the second premise it states, if God were all-powerful he could chase away any form of evil from happening, if he is all knowing then he has knowledge of when evil entrust occur and if he is all-good then God would stop all evil from happening.If god 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 good is not all good in that God does not wish to stop all evils. The third premise is stat ing the fact that there is evil in the world. The conclusion derived since that there is evil, then is what may be defined as God must be lacking in one or two 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 include the evils that would, in turn, lead to a greater amount of good and must take the route that leads to the least amount of evil to throw 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 rea son for this is because anything that happens in nature exceeds soul-building essentials. Another defense is God having presumptuousness 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 going too far to have God throw tornados, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes at us too. At what point do human have such control over nature.The last defense is that God entirely works in mysterious ways. Who can explain wherefore innate events take so many spiriteds 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 secret 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 long 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.