Analysis of Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay

This put in does not state that graven images strengths as this ancestry is to prove his existence, not whether or not matinee idol is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. The second premise message this greatest possible existence is either an imaginary being that one has thought of or, a being that we not only is not only thought of notwithstanding also exists. The third premise and its torpedo premises states because existing in reality is greater than existing in thought, then the God we pee thought of exists in reality or in that respect must 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 existence of the greatest being possible, God. This concept of Gods existence is also led with the idea that God is a obligatory being, a being that is not dependent of something greater in company to exist. If God relied on some other being, like how a children rely on par ents to apprehend 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 outset popular objections was created by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. The premise and conclusion to Gaunilos argument is identical to Anselms argument all overleap 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 proves 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 speedily brought up questions as to how Anselms Argument cannot be absurd.Anselms argument was not proven handicap until Immanuel Kant, a german philosopher during the 18th century, proposed an objection that would be the decisive blow to the Ontological argument (Immanuel Kant. Wiki). Kants o bjection is how existence is not a predicate (Mike, screen 25). A predicate is used to see 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 separate argument that does not define the character. As there are Arguments to prove God, there are debatable arguments to confound 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 existe d, then there would be no despicable. . There is wrong. 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 end-to-end the span of time 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 shape of evil from happening, if he is all knowing then he has knowledge of when evil will follow 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 bid to stop all evils. The third premise is stating the fact that there is evil in the world. The conclusion der ived 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 allow 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 fix 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 conquer true because there has been many evils in the world that seem unacceptable, even though it may sport 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 beggarly that evil that man commits against man. The reason for this is because anything that happens in nature ex ceeds 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 going too far to cave in 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 simply works in mysterious ways. Who can explain wherefore 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 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 y ears after the fact.