Ontological Argument: Objective and Subjective Reflection

Published: 2019-10-16 07:30:00
1401 words
5 pages
12 min to read
letter-mark
B
letter
University/College: 
Type of paper: 
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

In my article, I shall focus on Anselms There Exists Something Than Which a Great Cannot Be Thought. Anselm, a philosopher, is the founder of the Ontological Argument, which tries to prove Gods existence. Anselm was an archbishop of Canterbury and probably one of the greatest theologians in history. In his argument, he attempts to demonstrate the existence of God using an approach with a two-stage thesis: 1) the inborn nature of God's presence in connection to the divine nature and, 2) the apparent need of God's presence in the context of this extremely same nature. His contention is by reason, and any faith can clearly relate to the argument. However, he argues his ontological argument from a Christian perspective where he quotes the Bible on some occasions. I will reflect on his case from an objective view, as well as from a subjective ground; objective in the sense that I shall indicate using existing evidence and facts and subjective within the meaning that I shall reflect on the argument giving my personal opinions and thoughts. The ontological argument is one of the most fascinating and exciting arguments in Philosophy; however, various versions of the argument exist, but they all lead to one point: the existence of God.

One of Anselms arguments argues that there is nothing in existence that can be more noteworthy than God. He expresses God as a consummate, all enormity, commendable and the best there will ever exist. Anselm depicts God is the best, and if there existed a way to portray a case of Him then it would cease to be God. Another of Anselms arguments is that God exists at any rate in our comprehension; he tries to clarify the manner God is in our understanding. He states that if we consider something else as God, then God exists since we have already considered Him. A good instance would be when I fathom of a spot on the farm where the crops are healthy. The place ought to exist in any given circumstance in my brain since I have considered in any case; a similar situation applies to Gods existence. If we try to think of Him, it only means that He exists. Moreover, if God existed just in the understanding, we could find an option that is more prominent than God. Anselm considers anything existing both in substantial presence and comprehension is notable than that existing in thoughts solely.

Anselms contention expresses that God exists as a general rule. It is on the account of God being the best that it can be considered, God exists in the psyche, and something is more noteworthy if it is in all actuality, and it is likewise in our comprehension. Anselm has a little clarity of what he used as a method for enormity, what were the significances, what was the importance of the reality, what was the truth, and whether there was more than one reality. He had the nature of being devoted and faithful to his contentions. Anselms assertion has imperfections in his written work; however, his association drives one thing on to another and still bodes well. His premises are unreasonable and have holes in contention. Anselms claim is almost complete and answers a larger number of inquiries than inquired. Anselms claim can exist since it is not a conceivable dispute.

One argument that supports Anselms contention is an argument raised by Aquinas stating that God is the primary mover. Aquinas claim had little clearness of style on movement and a few things. He had precision in his contention and talked apparently and coherently. His exhaustiveness on the issue was not exceptionally well; he raised more inquiries than he did note them. The similarity of his contention did not have extremely implausible thoughts. He did not have convincing assertions on his work. One of Aquinas reasons was that there is another mover, and afterward, there is a first mover. What he implied by this is, if there is a mover then there must be a beginning mover. He implied there must be a commencing thing that began the line of moving. Additionally, he believed that the principal mover is God. What he implied by this is that God exists without being expected to appear. He stated that God is the first to be made because He is the one that moves the mover, which moved the other moving things.

Anselm and Aquinas had diverse perspectives of what God is. Anselm stated that God is the best, and nothing better can be considered, and God exists because, if something exists in thought and all actuality, then it is superior to anything something that lone exists in thought, so God exists in all actuality. However, Aquinas says that things are changed in life from probability to fact, and God is the main reality, which implies that He is a reality without changing from possibility, so God is perpetual. However, some contrasts exist between Anselms and Aquinas arguments. The contrast between the contentions is that Anselm trusts God exists as a general rule, and nothing can be considered that is more noteworthy. Then again Aquinas believes that God is constant, and God is the first to change objects from possibility to reality. Additionally, Anselm and Aquinas have comparable perspectives on the ways they view God. They both trust that God is the best, and nothing can be imagined to be superior to Him, because, the first is the perfectionist; one made because God is the model and is utilized to make different things in the universe. They both trust in the existence of God. As I would see it on the contentions, I am confident that God is neither a man nor a thing that is as a general rule at the same time, a being that assists us when we are in difficult positions.

Anselm's ontological contention verges on offending in its touchiness. To propose that "flawlessness" and "presence" are quantifiable things is hubristic, best case scenario and, even under the least favorable conditions, trite. Conversely, what I believe is most splendid about Aquinas' contention is that he does not claim to comprehend anything characteristically about God; he just gives a strong contention taking into account the proof he finds in nature that such a God must exist. To say that I "concur" with Aquinas might delude I have gotten myself intensely looking for mental apparatuses that are not there to disapprove his confirmation. For the interim, I need to value that his contention has left me with many inquiries and little answers. One of the issues that I have with Anselm's assertion is the way to go; that interminable flawlessness is a thought imagined by any means. If anyone was genuinely prepared to do a complete understanding of something that was more noteworthy and more magnificent than whatever else, it must be God Himself. As it happens, none of us is God, and our creative abilities limit us. We have a tendency to humanize God since we have no clue what "flawlessness" genuinely means, and Anselm is alluding to an immaculate being, the point at which he alludes to a being that nothing more noteworthy can be imagined. Nature is defective, and because we cannot watch or genuinely examine flawlessness, the word is innately vacuous.

In conclusion, Anselm attempts to demonstrate the existence of God using an approach with a two-stage thesis: 1) the inborn nature of God's presence in connection to the divine nature and, 2) the apparent need of God's presence in the context of this extremely same nature. One of his arguments argues that there is nothing in existence that can be more noteworthy than God. He expresses God as a consummate, all enormity, commendable and the best there will ever exist. Anselm's ontological contention verges on offending in its touchiness. To propose that "flawlessness" and "presence" are quantifiable things is hubristic, best case scenario and, even under the least favorable conditions, trite. My goal of the essay was to reflect on Anselms case from an objective view, as well as from a subjective ground; objective in the sense that I shall indicate using existing evidence and facts and subjective within the meaning that I shall reflect on the argument giving my personal opinions and thoughts.

Work Cited

Himma, Kenneth Einar. "Anselm: Ontological Argument For The GodS Existence | Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy". Iep.utm.edu. Web. 18 July 2016.

sheldon

Request Removal

If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SpeedyPaper website, please click below to request its removal: