God’s Existence Can Be Proven a Priori Essay

Trying to prove that god exists is a strong demarcation and many race throw off act many distinguish adequate vogues. The ontological strain is one stock at the centre of the argument is the concept of be. The Ontological argument has been palisaded from a group of philosophers for the human beingnesss of deity. Ontological means talking about man and so that being is the existence of theology. The ontological argument differs from other arguments in favour of immortal because of the incident that it is an a priori deductive argument.There be two main arguments for the ontological argument which seeks to prove the existence of matinee idol a priori. The offshoot argument is from Anselm he was the Archbishop of Canterbury and thitherfore started his argument from a theistic point of view. Anselm guessd that no belief in immortal was absurd and he utilise a reducio ad absurdum argument, which tries to attest that God non existing could not be believed becaus e in not believing you are adopting a nonsensical argument. His kickoff point was his definition of God, God is the feeling than which zip fastener greater commode be conceived.Firstly Anselm attacks the nous that there is no God, even the thought that there is no God requires the concept of God. The superlative possible being has to exist in receivedity as well as in the mind to be the great possible being thence we crumb conceive of the greatest possible being because it also has to exist in world. A blame that was raised about the greatest possible being is that we as valet all fork out different appraisals of what it could be n constantlytheless if Anselm responded by secernateing that when we reach the idea of much(prenominal)(prenominal) a full(prenominal) level being such as God then the idea of what it is becomes very similar.Therefore God exists according to Anselm. Also God is considered to be a unavoidable being, which will always exist, does not rel y on other beings and gagenot not exist, consequently God must exist if he is to be called a necessary being. The second philosopher to argue the existence of God using the ontological argument was Rene Descartes he set out his argument firstly by defining God as a supremely amend being. From this he tried to prove the existence of God, because God is defined as a supremely blameless being he possess all holyions.According to Descartes the perfect state includes existence as well as the classical attri andes of God, he believed that existence was perfection in itself and therefore God must exist. Therefore this is why we as humans pottynot have a necessary existence because we do not have complete perfection. Descartes used mathematics and an example of a mountain with a valley to explain that God must exist, the mountain being reprinting from the valley and according to him it is the same with God, you scum bagnot separate existence from God.This argument still kindleno t apply to objects affected by space and time, contingent things and can however apply to necessary beings which are perfect. He continues by pleading that only God can have absolute perfection and there can only be one absolute. Descartes goes on to point out that Mackie or Russell are trying to establish necessary existence of contingent objects such as unicorns but necessary existence only applies to absolutely perfect beings.A criticism of the argument was put forward by doubting Thomas doubting Thomas, who had already questioned the important aspect of the ontological argument, the idea that we cannot assign existence a priori to our definition of the idea of a perfect being. Aquinas claimed Anselm was wrong of making a transitional error, moving from his definition of God to the claim that he exists. Anselm also made the assumption that his definition was shared out by all believers of God. The meaning of the term God means he exists in peoples understanding but not in rea lity.According to Aquinas the existence of God must be shown a posteriori which is what he tried to attempt to show in his cosmological argument. Also David Hume disagrees with the ontological argument. Hume was an empiricist so disapproves the use of a priori to prove existence and believes it should only be used for a definition. A description of a thing can read every detail possible but we have to go beyond a description to be able to determine its existence, mediocre because we can describe it does not mean it therefore pops into existence.He believed the only way in which you could prove something a priori was if the opposite implies a contradiction, such as x=not x. Therefore if it implies a contraction then it is unsufferable and then everything can be conceived not to exist. Therefore Humes believed that nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God. He came to the result that existence could only ever be contingent. Kant also disagrees with Descartes ontologic al argument. He used the example of a triangle, if you have a triangle it must have three angles but if you do not have a triangle it will not have three angles.It all depends on whether you agree there is a God or not, if there is a God then his existence is necessary but we do not have to accept the idea there is a God. Descartes according to Kant just gives God existence, however existence isnt a property. God could have all the classic attributes but still he might not exist. For example a chair, it has many properties which are established a posteriori but whether it exists or not have to be discovered a priori. utilize Descartes idea but changing it slightly, existence is not predicate.By adding reality to something does not mean it makes it better, Kants example, a snow real thalers does not contain the least coin more than a hundred possible thalers. We must establish whether something exists or not before we can describe it, not the other way around and therefore if there is a perfect being then he must exist. Kant distinguishes amidst a priori and a posteriori, a priori are necessary, they have to be so whereas a posteriori can be challenged, such as how many people you think you saw.If something exists and the existence of that tells us about its property then by saying it does not exist you deny it of that property and almost say that it lacks it, however how can you say that something that does not exist lack something? This is a strong argument against the ontological argument which cannot be explained easily. A criticism of Anselms ontological argument directly was from Gaunilo, he had the same idea as Kant, that something cannot be defined into existence.Just because we define what we believe God to be does not mean that he actually exists. In Gaunilos book On behalf of the Fool, he describes the Lost Island as the greatest possible island and that no greater island can be conceived. It is logical to say that it is greater to exist in realit y than as just an idea. If this island therefore did not exist there could be a even greater island which did exist and so therefore the Lost Island must exist somewhere.The perfect island exists but it may not be what you think of as the perfect island because by imaging it does not mean it exists. Therefore Anselm saying that God the perfect being had to exist cannot work. However, there is a problem with Gaunilos criticism, Anselm said he was not arguing about contingent things such as the island which have no intrinsic maximum, he was arguing for the greatest thing that can be conceived which has a intrinsic maximum and so can be perfect.Therefore the ontological argument can be used to talk about such things as God which is necessary but cannot be used when talking about contingent things such as an island. The island is limited whereas the notion of God is not. To conclude, to prove the existence of God a priori we need to have knowledge of what God is, before wizard experien ce can be gathered. This is where the ontological argument falls down. How can we understand a being when we cannot see, hear or touch them first if we want to prove the existence using a priori.A priori uses facts which are either true or false to determine things but without ever experiencing God ourselves through a posteriori first we have no facts in which to use a priori. The only way in which we can argue that God exists is if we treat him as if he were an object. God existence is reality in the believers world but for someone who is atheist then he does not. I agree with Norman Malcolm who argued that necessary existence cannot be affected by anything external to itself. It cannot be created or destroyed, therefore God either exists or his existence is impossible.Therefore I believe that he cannot exist because something would have had to bring him into existence at the informant which therefore means he cannot be a necessary being because he would have always had to exist but there must have been a point when he didnt. Also if he is a necessary being with all the classical attributes why is the evil and low-down and if he was omnipotent then why does he want to fell himself from us? If he has power in which to be able to show himself then why has he not and then we would be able to prove his existence using a posteriori instead of a priori.