Could someone please give me a précis of the ontological argument?

Answer 1

Perhaps strangely, I agree here with DuckPhup. The argument presented by Martin S, summarizing Anselmian theology, is indeed classical Latin scholasticism, which is bound to failure because it tries to prove rationally that which cannot be proven and which is not rational.

God reveals Himself to the human heart in a way which cannot be conceived rationally (although the rational mind may play a part in the perception of that revelation). When God revealed Himself to Abram (later to become Abraham) in Ur of Chaldea, He did not do it through rational or logical arguments. He did it as a direct experiential revelation to someone who had a pure heart and great faith.

In any case, you may be talking about a specific "ontological argument" that I am not familiar with in theological terms. What I consider ontological are not arguments but revelations given to god-bearing holy people about the presence of the living God.

Answer 2

The classic A Priori argument for the existence of God is the ontological argument presented by the Italian Benedictine monk, Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109), in his work Proslogion (Chapters 2-4). Anselm first defines God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” He then goes on to argue that since one can conceive of “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” and that since physical existence is greater than a conceptualization of that existence, God must therefore exist because otherwise “a being than which none greater can be conceived “ can be conceived to be greater than it is. This argument was presented again in a somewhat modified form by Renee Descartes in his Fifth Meditations.

These arguments fail when they are translated into symbolic logic forms . In fact, every logical argument that can be advanced to “prove” the existence of God can be rejected by a person who has determined ahead of time not to be persuaded by the weight of evidence. Such a person can insert any number of variables into the argument based upon the “What if...(some other set of facts that does not include the concept of God)?” formula. In his 1939 book Systematic Theology, Prof. L Berkhof briefly examines the Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological, Moral, and Historical or Ethnological arguments along with their weaknesses and concludes:

“Moreover, in using these arguments in an attempt to convince unbelievers, it will be well to bear in mind that none of them can be said to carry absolute conviction.”

Answer 3

Basically, they attempt to prove the existence of god based on pure reason. They all fail because they make assumptions about 'existence' which cannot be validated.

An 'ontological proof' proves nothing. It is, however, a great example of an 'oxymoron'.

Answer 4

Here we go.

"Don't call God God. There are too many versions of him. Call him 'That which nothing greater can exist.' Now think of the greatest think you could think of- the higest most virtuous power you could even imagine. That is God. Now imagine a being that is higher than that. The first ceases to be God, because it is now not the greatest thing that can be concieved."

In summary, God is the greatest being that can be concieved... period. This argument is a circular one which, if you take it to its extreme, goes on in circles forever.

So there you go. It's confusing, but you'll get it eventually.