Religious belief is a strong faith in the existence of a supernatural being who is in control of one’s destiny. To believe that God exists, one needs to have faith. Different people hold onto different reasons as to why they believe in God, some of which include the need for personal control. The people understand and believe that power or authority comes from above and thus from God, and you have to seek Him first. Secondly, coping with death increases people’s belief in the powerfulness of prayer and spirits. They believe there is life after death and thus receive consolation. Having firm faith enables people to wait upon the lord and what they cannot see and to have hope that good things will happen after undergoing struggle (Feinberg, Joel & Landau 25). This paper is a summary of the ontological argument that there is the existence of God and possible objections based on my perspective on whether it is right or wrong.
The ontological arguments -these are types of cases that use priori logical reasoning, fundamental premises and analytics to conclude that indeed God is existent. These arguments are source-derived rather than world observation; thus, they arise from thinking alone. The first well-known argument was put forward by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. Century C.E., from his Proslogian writings, St. Anselm, assumes God’s existence to be more significant than what one thinks of. He also reasoned out that if the very being does not exist, then there is a conception of an existing in reality which is extraordinary (Feinberg, Joel & Landau 31). The second argument argues that God is in time, eternal, unlimited and some of the existence, hence a real being. He also explains that if God is existent, then he must be an essential being rather than an unforeseen being. A creature that cannot be imagined to exist must seem to be bigger than that which is envisioned to be non-existent. This kind of argument is referred to as ‘Reductio ad absurdum.’ Anselm cooperates with this method with the aim of reducing the inconsistency of a phenomenon being proved (God is non-existent). He proposes to show the obvious by the use of an argument that God’s existence is logically essential, but he can’t exist (Feinberg, Joel & Landau 32).
René Descartes came up with many ontological arguments based on Anselm’s original works. Descartes argues and believes at the same time that God is supremely a perfect being. God holds all the perfections, and it is a must he exists. He also tries to put forward that God is naturally perfect and the geometric idea or the triangular shape is a good illustration of who he is, and his existence cannot be denied at all cost. Analytically, the statement is true. The clauses in the statement say something that is true in almost all instances. Descartes vigorously defended that analytically beinghood belonged to the highest God just as three angles to the triangle.
With the failure to prove that God exists, the ontological arguments by Anselm face criticisms posed by various philosophers. One of them is Gaunilo. He used an island theory. He urges people to conceive and believe that an island is real and does exist rather than imagining. Anselm counteracts Guaiol’s approach with a reasonable explanation that the only applicable arguments were of a required existence. The island theory will never reach perfection and can only be enhanced since it is an undetermined object (Feinberg, Joel & Landau 37). Descartes adds that there will be no full conception of God by the people humans example, theists. Thomas Aquinas also suggests that without a good understanding of God and his essence no one will fully ever conceive him.
Kant’s major criticism is that existence is not real, as per the theories put forward by both Anselm and Descartes. He states that the sentiment “God exists” can only be analytical because of the meaning the word is granted. David Hume adds criticism to the argument saying that human beings do not have a significant understanding and experience concerning the existence of God and no conclusion on God’s presence can be made via conceiving (Feinberg, Joel & Landau 41).
In my own thinking capacity, the ontological argument does not prove God’s existence. Atheists reviewing the same argument will encounter difficulty understanding how Anselm and Descartes prove God’s existence. It’s only based on assumptions, and no atheists will come to terms with this argument. The ontological argument, being a priori, offers no concrete support or evidence. Relying only on logic makes it harder to comprehend how the whole thing can be correct because they no nothing about God, not even through assumptions. Many people propose that the conception of God is impossible, and so is his existence; hence, the ontological argument does not adequately provide information that anyone, not anyone, not even an atheist, honestly believes in God’s presence.
The ontological argument for God’s existence is both criticized and supported at the same time. The theory had its strengths and weaknesses. In our humanity, no one can prove God’s existence. We only believe that he lives and reigns forever. This situation leaves us helpless to demonstrate to our atheist brothers. But all in all, every individual has his or her own beliefs about religion and God that propels them to act or do things in a certain way as far as their faith is concerned. Most people believe in God’s significance in such a way that people receive blessings, inherent problem-solving, removal of fear and anxiety, acceptance of the holy spirit and provision of guidance in their daily undertakings by God.
Works Cited
Feinberg, Joel, and Russ Shafer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. , 2017. Print.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
