the ontological argument for the existence of God?

Question

what are the main criticisms of the ontological argument

Answer 1

The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist. This is obviously a controversial position, and the ontological argument has a long history of detractors and defenders.

Here's a short, and very general description of the ontological argument:

God is the greatest possible being and thus possesses all perfections.
Existence is a perfection.
God exists.

Criticism:
A traditional criticism of the argument (first found in Gassendi's Objections to Descartes' Meditations, and later modified by Kant) is that existence is not a perfection, because existence is not a property as such, and that referring to it as a property confuses the distinction between a concept of something and the thing itself. The argument is that anything which has the property of being non-existent could not possibly have any other properties, being non-existent, and thus not having color, location, or any other property. One cannot, the argument says, speak meaningfully of the non-existent apple that one is holding, saying that it is red, crisp, weighs a certain amount, is in one's right hand, and does not exist.

Answer 2

The first criticism was that your idea of perfect and my idea of perfect are very different. For example picture an Island - my Island may have 5 tree's, yours may have 4, but to each of us they are perfect (Gaunilo). However this doesn't work as an argument because we not describing perfection, we are describing something outside of it - so therefore nothing can be added or taken away as you can't imagine it.

Kant's argument that existence is not a predicate (as already commented on) is probably the most useful argument against the ontological argument.

There is some comment though on the fact that just because Anselm's ontological argument doesn't seem to work, it doesn't mean that the Ontological argument is useless. For example see Plantinga's ontological argument. Bertrand Russell also commented that it is difficult to argue against the ontological argument as the responses are as hard to explain as the original argument!

Answer 3

God does not exist. God simply is. (To clarify: I'm feeling a bit theistic right now. I'm very flexibly agnostic, and my opinion could change tomorrow. I don't believe in a God that "exists" as we do, one made of matter and energy, and I find the term "spirit" awkward. If God is, then God Is (capitalization deliberate). God is the is-ness, the very essence of being. God doesn't exist because God is that which does not exist and cannot exist. If God existed, it wouldn't be God. As an agnostic, I still believe we cannot know the nature of God - I'm just making this up as I go along, same as anyone else)

Answer 4

Well, at what point would you consider "something" a God?

For example, if some being came before you and performed a bunch of "miracles," would you then think that being is a God?

How would you know it is not just some highly advanced alien race that has better technology than us and it just looks like a miracle.

Imagine if someone had come around 500 years ago with an ipod. People would have thought that was magic, when all it is is technology.

So it is difficult for us humans to know who, if anyone, would be a God.

Answer 5

Well i guess in that god exists, if that was the argument? But is it not the concept of god that is suggested to exist? This is slightly different to what you seem to be implying.

The subject is so broad and the verb and object undefined. A logical argument cannot be made and therefore there is no argument. The concept exists. "God" MIGHT exist. That is the argument on such a broad scale. Again- there is no argument against the concept.

Answer 6

the ontological argument was by Saint Anselm "God is that than which nothing greater can be thought" or basically that god is the greatest conceivable being.

it was problematic in a few ways, and possibly even heretical because many philosophers believed that you could not even conceive of God.

Or some believed that If you only thought of the Greatest possible being you could always think of something greater, therefore you were not conceiving God, but something else.

Answer 7

It would have to be the assumption that what exists outside the mind is greater than that which exists inside of it.

Then there's the assumption such a being exists at all. I could say that a "Purple Dog" is the greatest thing that can be concieved. It doesn't make it true.

The argument is based on assumptions that, I personally, would not take as true.

Answer 8

It's absolute nonsense. One can always say there is something bigger but how can you show that just because it is big it is God? If God is defined as "the biggest thing possible" then the ontological argument has merit; that isn't how most people define God.

Answer 9

If the proof for existence of GOD is based on common sense and physical laws, then there can be no criticisms at all.
The main obstacle that disturbs the human to be convinced 100% that GOD exists, is because the human will be forced to change all his behavior towards freedom and he will be obligated to follow GOD's commands rather than do anything with no restriction at all. Therefore it is much easier and convenient to say "GOD does not exist".
Now if a human wants really to analyse and check objectively the existence or non existence of GOD, then he must be honest and think logically and reasonably.
1. Is it true that to all action there is at least one reaction and each action has been caused by causes made in the past??
The answer should be "yes" since it is based on Newtons laws of physics and on all other studies. Like in psychology :"each stimulation on a human will cause a reaction"
2. If your car was harmed, would you say that some body or something has caused the damage to your car? or will you say that the damage was caused by itself?
3. when you see the whole universe in front of you, would you say that it is created by itself or some power created it?
4. If you follow this reasonning would you accept that there must be one (and only one ) big power that created anything?
the answer should "yes".
Now we have a problem if we continue asking the questions, who created GOD? what can we answer?
Now we have reached a controversal question. GOD by definition is the creator of all, so how can we ask who created HIM? if he is created by some other power, then this other power would be GOD. So we reach the conclusion that GOD created himself. Or the creation of GOD is perpetual, as an infinite loop of creation inside GOD.
Now if we divide the existence by two: Created entity and Creator, then we can say that Newtons' Laws are only valid for created entity, and not valid for GOD, since GOD no doubt is the creator of the physical laws.


.

Answer 10

Whose to say God DOES exist anyway. When we were all children were we not brought up to believe in Santa, Fairies, unicorns, etc etc etc. We were also (even if we didnt go to church) brought up about Jesus. If not by our families then in school.

BUT......We all discovered in our own little ways that santa, fairies, unicorns etc dont exist they are just stories made up for little children to believe in and dream about.

SO......What if God and Jesus were also one of these stories, and it just took one person to believe everything that was written in the Bible and spread the word. Then there became followers who really wanted to believe that no matter how things turned out, if they followed and trusted that God was real they would be sure to go to a better place after life.

WHOSE TO SAY THIS ISNT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?????????????