Ontological Argument Essay Example For Students

Ontological Argument Essay Most people have not witnessed or experienced God andtherefore are confused about its existence. In Westerntheology, three theories have emerged to demonstrate theexistence of God. These theories are the ontologicalargument, the cosmological argument, and the teleologicalargument. St. Anselm of eleventh century, and Descartes ofseventeenth century, have used the ontological argument forproving the existence of God. The God, for them, issupreme, needing nothing outside himself, but needful forthe being and well-being of all things. (Pg. 305). St Anselms account of the ontological argument for theexistence of God deals with the existence in theunderstanding vs. existence in reality. He defines God asthe greatest conceivable or possible being. He adds thatany person who hears this statement describing Godunderstands what is meant. His argument is that if God didnot exist, then a being greater than God would be possible. This being then would be greater than the greatest possiblebeing, which is impossible. Therefore he proves that thereis no being greater than God and hence God exists. Hisargument is also based on the premise that the idea of aneternal being who either does not yet exist or no longerexists is self-contradictory, so that the very idea we have ofsuch a being requires existence. (Pg. 307). In his Meditations, Decartes offers the following version ofthe ontological argument. He considers the idea of God, asupremely perfect being, just as real as the idea of theexistence of any shape or a number. His understanding ofGods existence is no less clear and distinct than his proofsfor the existence of any shape or number. Therefore headds, although all that I concluded in the precedingMeditations were found to be false, the existence of Godwould pass with me as at least as certain as I have everheld the truths of mathematics. (Pg. 308). Initially, thismight not be all clear, and may have some a ppearance ofbeing a sophism. He argues that unlike other things he mightpersuade himself that existence can be separated from theessence of God, and hence that God can be thought of asnot existing. He adds that when he thinks of it with moreattention, he clearly sees that existence can no more beseparated from the essence of God, than the fact that itsthree angles equal two right angles can be separated fromthe essence of a triangle, or that the idea of a mountain canbe separated from the idea of a valley (Pg. 308). Hence, itis just as much of a contradiction to think of God (that is, asupremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lackingperfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley. His theory is that he cant think of God without it existingand therefore it exists. Also he gives God all kinds ofperfection and because existence is one of the perfection,God necessarily exists. (Pg. 309). Kants critique of Anselms and Descartes arguments statethat existence is not a perfection because all perfections arequalities, and existence is not any kind of characteristic,quality, attribute, or property. When we say that somethingexists, Kant argued, we add nothing to our concept ofthat thing we merely say that there is something similar tothat concept. It follows that no matter how manycharacteristics of a thing we list; we will still not haveanswered the question whether there is something having allthose characteristics. Being is evidently not a realpredicate, or a concept of something that can be added tothe concept of a thing. It is merely the admission of a thing,and of certain determinations in it. (Pg. 311). His argumentis that it is all right to say that God has certaincharacteristics but it is another to say that such a Godexists. Many contemporary philosophers agree with Kantsargument, but many others do not. Furthermore,contemporary logicians have developed versions of theontological argument that can even dispense with thecontroversial notion of existence as a property. It is clearthat, considered simply as a logical argument, theontological argument does not have the power to convertnonbelievers into believers. Or if you are a believer, it isclear that an objection to the proof is not going to shakeyour faith in any way whatsoever. So the significance of theproof is ambiguous; as a logical exercise it is brilliant, as anexpression of faith it may be edifying, but as an actual proofthat God exists or as a means of converting atheists itseems to have no power at all. (Pg.313). I agree with Anselms argument that in order for God to bethe Supreme Being, the best, He must exist in both theunderstanding as well as in reality. Where did the worldstart? Where did everything start? If we believe that onething came after another then there has to be a startingpoint. The only possible answer to this starting point isGod. Thus, there must have been a creator, the God. Fromour experience we know that everything arises fromsomething else, and therefore God started everything. Theontological argument does not clearly prove where God isto show how God started. What characteristics does God possess? Traditionaltheology has believed that God is omnipotent(all-powerful), omniscient (all knowing), andomnibenevolent (all good), Omni-present (everywhere),eternal (with no beginning and no end), etc. In short, God isthe greatest being and none greater is possible. Thesecharacteristics have left people to have faith in the existenceof God. When people can not show cause and effe ct forcertain happenings they attribute their cause to God. Theremust be God to keep order in the world or as some peoplesay to keep the world going in utter disorder. Free Euthanasia EssayMost humans are religious and generally speaking olderpeople are more religious than younger people are. Whydo people turn to religion? There are many differentanswers given to this question. Some do it for givingguidance to their lives. For others, it gives them hope, orgives them rationalization for the lack of justice in thisworld. Others turn to religion as a kind of irresponsiblereaction to a world we cannot cope with. This reaction issimilar to a childs unwillingness to give up an illusion ofsecurity that he or she should have outgrown inadolescence. Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud were critical ofreligion and believed it to be an obstacle to mansself-determination and self-realization. Their basic idea wasthat humans invented religion to escape their intolerablesocial conditions. I do not believe in their premise becausereligion gives humans an understanding of their purpose inthis world. Religion keeps people sane and makes thembelieve in the order of things . The basis of Marxs religious criticism is that man makesreligion; and that religion does not make man. It is the manthat is the human world, a state, society. This state, thissociety, produces religion, which is an inverted worldconsciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this upside-down world. Itgives the world its logic, its spiritual guidance, itsenthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, itsgeneral basis of consolation and justification. The struggleagainst religion is, therefore, indirectly a struggle against theworld whose spiritual aroma is religion. According toMarx, religious suffering is at the same time an expressionof real suffering and protest against real suffering. (Pg.347). Marx advocated that the abolition of religion as the illusoryhappiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. Hewas appalled at the masses flocking to religion. He said, itis clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticismof arms. Material force can only be overthrown bymaterial force; but theory itself becomes a material forcewhen it has seized the masses. Theory is capable of seizingthe masses when it demonstrates ad hominem and it isdemonstrate ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. (Pg.348). Marxs criticism of religion ends with the thought that manis the Supreme Being for man. This thought desires tooverthrow all those conditions in which man is an abased,enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being conditionswhich can hardly be better described than in theexclamation of the Frenchman on the occasion of aproposed tax upon dogs: Wretched dogs! They want totreat you like men! (Pg.348). Friedrich Nietzsche was another critique of religion. Hecalled the Bible, the book that is perhaps the greatestaudacity and sin against the spirit which literary Europehas on its conscience. (Pg.348). According to him theChristian conception of God God as god of the sick, Godas a spider, God as spirit is one of the most corruptconceptions of the divine ever attained on earth. Notsurprisingly, Nietzsche saw the decline of Christianity andreligion in general, with great enthusiasm. It is Nietzschewho popularized the old Lutheran phase, God is dead,but with an anti-religious twist and a shout of delight thatdeclared open war on all remaining forms of religiousweaknesses. (Pg.349). This call for God is dead, wasbased on the belief that the Christian God had becomeunworthy of belief. Many philosophers and free spirits feltredemption in this event. Another person to attack religion was Sigmund Freud, whoreduced the grand aspirations of religion to, mere illusions,but, even worse, the illusions of an insecure child who hasnever properly grown up. According to him, religious ideasare given out as teachings, are not precipitates ofexperience or end results of thinking; they are illusions,fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishesof mankind. An illusion is not the same thing as an error;nor is it necessarily an error. What is characteristic ofillusion is that they are derived from human wishes. In thisrespect they come near to psychiatric delusions. He calleda belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominentfactor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard itsrelations to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store byverification. All three philosophers agree that the only proper concernof man is humanity. They believe in man and not God. These philosophers did not outright hate religion. Freudwas fascinated by Jewish mysticism and Nietzsche offeredextravagant praise of Buddhism. But they felt that thebalance is very important. They argue that no one can denythat there have been thousands of atrocities to both spiritand body in the name of religion. I believe that religion has taught humans to behave like aman. The self-determination and self-realization of man isnot hindered by religion. If people did not believe in God,there might be lessening of good deeds. For some,realization of god is like self-realization. Many peoples inthe east believe in re-incarnation and believe that soul neverdies. For them this gives continuity to life as a chain ofthings. These people want to believe in God and immersethemselves in God. Religion