Ontological Argument For God's Existence Essay

1635 Words 7 Pages
There are various systems and arguments for proving God’s existence; created by a plethora of theologists, psychologists, and philosophers, but I will be focusing on one: The Ontological Argument for God’s existence. The basic structure for the Ontological argument is set up as a reductio ad absurdum argument, which is essentially an argument which derives a solution by presenting the opposition to the desired solution, then formulating that it is absurd, or illogical, then in turn proves the desired outcome is the solution. The Ontological argument was first set forth by St. Anselm in the eleventh century(cite). The Ontological argument for the proof of God’s existence is the only argument which provides factual support towards understanding …show more content…
Anselm’s argument for God’s existence, then reviewing Gaunilo’s criticism and Anselm’s rejoinder to this criticism choosing a side calls for many factors to play certain key roles. The first factor I will review is the way in which Anselm’s argument is established. Anselm’s argument is established well, but the overall basis for his argument is kind of entrapping. Whether you believe in God before reading his argument, or not, you will not find much factual or faithful proof for God’s existence, rather just a solution which requires the first step to be having a somewhat belief of God. Anselm argues in his response that if you do not conceive of this being, then you cannot conceive of the non-existence, therefore if you do not think of the greatest being in your mind first you can never think of it existing(cite). This argument flows well because if you do not know of something you cannot deny its truth or accept its falseness. Although, Gaunilo’s criticism has a sturdy argument, it does not give me a full proof way of not accepting Anselm’s original argument for the existence of God because the idea of a supreme being, God, is far different than the idea of an island full of tangible items. With this being said, I side with St. Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence. Anselm’s argument is far deeper and more in depth with responses to criticisms of all takes on his argument. Gaunilo’s criticism only touches the surface because he uses something incomparable to God, an island. Although Gaunilo’s criticism could be accepted for various reasons; one which is: the fact that Gaunilo makes note of the fact that if the being is in his mind, this full understanding does not mean that it exists also in reality. Gaunilo has a strong counterargument for the way that Anselm states that God’s existence is undeniable. Although his pattern works for the deduction of the greatest conceivable being existing in reality and in the mind if it is the true

Related Documents