St Anselm’s ontological argument is based on the premise that God exists through analysis of nature, existence and reality (Ajkin & Hodges 116). A proper understanding and analysis of nature reveals that there is a system that was properly constructed to ensure inter-dependence and correlation. A slight change in one aspect of nature would have led to completely different results. This means that there was and still is a supernatural being that ensures that everything interacts in accordance to the desired end result (Edgar & Ramharter 56). The argument states that an orderly and perfect God exists and this explains the reason as to why all things work in accordance to the fulfillment of his will. Conversely, there are no facts or empirical
…show more content…
In this case, it is not applicable to the modern mind and the beings. People in modern times are accustomed to accepting truth based on facts that can be tested and retested (Layton 101). Needless to say, there is no way to be able to test the existence of a supernatural God that cannot be seen, heard or touched. In this case, people will believe what they have been told because it is passed down from one generation to another and not because it can be proven right or wrong. The lack of any aspects that can be proven about this supernatural God makes it impossible to accept St Anselm’s ontological argument. It makes it seem as more of a story told by people who did not have access to modern equipment and wanted to explain …show more content…
The bible contains doctrines that are highly accepted by Christian followers globally (Oppy 23). By the time the argument was being put forward, it was easily accepted as science had not been improved to the level at which it is right now. It is easier to conclude that, the philosophy was easily accepted because any theory that quoted the bible and used it as evidence was readily accepted during that era. Needless to say, the argument was presented at a point where questioning the bible and the church doctrines was termed as a crime that was punishable by law and people
In this case, it is not applicable to the modern mind and the beings. People in modern times are accustomed to accepting truth based on facts that can be tested and retested (Layton 101). Needless to say, there is no way to be able to test the existence of a supernatural God that cannot be seen, heard or touched. In this case, people will believe what they have been told because it is passed down from one generation to another and not because it can be proven right or wrong. The lack of any aspects that can be proven about this supernatural God makes it impossible to accept St Anselm’s ontological argument. It makes it seem as more of a story told by people who did not have access to modern equipment and wanted to explain …show more content…
The bible contains doctrines that are highly accepted by Christian followers globally (Oppy 23). By the time the argument was being put forward, it was easily accepted as science had not been improved to the level at which it is right now. It is easier to conclude that, the philosophy was easily accepted because any theory that quoted the bible and used it as evidence was readily accepted during that era. Needless to say, the argument was presented at a point where questioning the bible and the church doctrines was termed as a crime that was punishable by law and people