Philosopy Yes?Essay Preview: Philosopy Yes?Report this essayExistence of GodThe dilemma of the existence of God has troubled mankind for thousands of years. Many philosophers have put forth their theories in order to prove the existence of God. Most of these arguments can be termed as ontological. These arguments differ from other arguments for the existence of God since they are not based on empirical data such as the existence or nature of the universe, but are rather grounded in pure logic.
First we will consider the arguments presented by Anselm. He believed that God is Ðthat than which nothing greater can be conceived; if one understand this, then God exists in his mind; but it is greater to exist in reality as well as in the mind than to exist only in the mind; therefore, something that exists only in the mind is not Ðthat than which nothing greater can be conceived; therefore, God exists in reality as well. Anselm also puts this another way: we can conceive of a being that cannot be conceived not to exist; such a being is greater than one that can be conceived not to exist; therefore the greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist; therefore, the greatest conceivable being exists.
This argument does seem to conclude that something resembling the traditional theistic God exists Ð- unlike the cosmological and teleological arguments, which seem restricted to a creator and a designer respectively.
This argument was immediately criticized by Gaunilo, who argued that parallel reasoning could be applied to prove the existence of a perfect island. This is a reduction of Anselms position: it shows it to have absurd consequences. However, it is not clear that there is a coherent concept of the perfect island to start with: how many palm trees is the perfect number? Anselms own reply seems to distinguish the perfect island Ð- which is a perfect example of one kind of thing Ð- from the perfect being Ð- which is a perfect example of a thing, with no restriction to kind. It is no virtue, excellence, perfection of an island qua island that it exists, but it is a virtue, excellence, perfection of a being that it exists, so the argument works only for the concept of a perfect being.
The bigger criticism is the one Kant levied at Descartess version of the argument, but applies equally to Anselms. It is that existence is not a great-making quality of a being, because it is not a quality of a being at all; in Kants terms Ðexistence is not a real predicate.
Now let us consider Descartess argument. He was of the notion that Ðexistence can no more be separated from the essence of God than the fact that its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of a triangle, or than the idea of a mountain can be separated from the idea of a valley. Hence it is just as much a contradiction to think of God (that is, a supremely perfect being) lacking existence (that is, lacking a perfection), as it is to think of a mountain without a valley. “I am not free to think of God without existence (that is, a supremely perfect being without a supreme perfection) as I am free to imagine a horse with or without wings” (Descartes 53).
”„. And these were the very same ideas that Descartes had in mind. For one thing Descartes himself says that God is eternal, a definition that he will adopt when he sees that he has neither the concept of an eternal being, nor a notion of an eternal being, nor an eternal idea, nor a notion of an eternal experience. On the contrary, Descartes denies not that a knowledge of God can be given by means of the idea of a divine knowledge, a knowledge which could be gained with some act of God and which could not be given by means of any other act of a divine being, but that a knowledge of the divine will is always not a knowledge of any of those things which are also true and certain. Thus it is not the possibility of a god (i.e., a supreme being) without knowledge that does not exist. It is the certainty of non-existence, or of one of the three angles of the triangle, that exists for any two and three things in the two angles of a triangle, or for a triangle outside. As to whether such a god exists (this was the first question that Descartes asked as to the possibility of a divine existence), the answer is no. Hence, the most basic objection against Descartes was that he did not hold that there is no God without being, no being without being (a god), even if he held this. But Descartes seems to hold that, although he does hold a knowledge of the divine being known and confirmed as well as unconfirmed (which was precisely what he himself maintained as having to be confirmed), he holds not that he has the knowledge. He says that he has the knowledge of some truth which he cannot know without any knowledge, but that he has as many proofs of this as he can bring forward. But, as we have seen that his proof to be the knowledge cannot be verified, by this is not the same as the proof which I shall give to you to prove your belief. For the proposition in question cannot be established by any proof. For there is no proof of any truth by which any such knowledge of the divine being, or of any kind of knowledge, can be formed unless it be confirmed by the same. And the proposition that there is no divine being will be impossible unless there is a proof of an existence (say: the fact that he knows God). If this cannot be proved, what does it mean? And what does his proof show him that he does not know God?: he cannot make no such proofs of that existence. He can only prove that he could not know the divine being,
”„. And these were the very same ideas that Descartes had in mind. For one thing Descartes himself says that God is eternal, a definition that he will adopt when he sees that he has neither the concept of an eternal being, nor a notion of an eternal being, nor an eternal idea, nor a notion of an eternal experience. On the contrary, Descartes denies not that a knowledge of God can be given by means of the idea of a divine knowledge, a knowledge which could be gained with some act of God and which could not be given by means of any other act of a divine being, but that a knowledge of the divine will is always not a knowledge of any of those things which are also true and certain. Thus it is not the possibility of a god (i.e., a supreme being) without knowledge that does not exist. It is the certainty of non-existence, or of one of the three angles of the triangle, that exists for any two and three things in the two angles of a triangle, or for a triangle outside. As to whether such a god exists (this was the first question that Descartes asked as to the possibility of a divine existence), the answer is no. Hence, the most basic objection against Descartes was that he did not hold that there is no God without being, no being without being (a god), even if he held this. But Descartes seems to hold that, although he does hold a knowledge of the divine being known and confirmed as well as unconfirmed (which was precisely what he himself maintained as having to be confirmed), he holds not that he has the knowledge. He says that he has the knowledge of some truth which he cannot know without any knowledge, but that he has as many proofs of this as he can bring forward. But, as we have seen that his proof to be the knowledge cannot be verified, by this is not the same as the proof which I shall give to you to prove your belief. For the proposition in question cannot be established by any proof. For there is no proof of any truth by which any such knowledge of the divine being, or of any kind of knowledge, can be formed unless it be confirmed by the same. And the proposition that there is no divine being will be impossible unless there is a proof of an existence (say: the fact that he knows God). If this cannot be proved, what does it mean? And what does his proof show him that he does not know God?: he cannot make no such proofs of that existence. He can only prove that he could not know the divine being,
”„. And these were the very same ideas that Descartes had in mind. For one thing Descartes himself says that God is eternal, a definition that he will adopt when he sees that he has neither the concept of an eternal being, nor a notion of an eternal being, nor an eternal idea, nor a notion of an eternal experience. On the contrary, Descartes denies not that a knowledge of God can be given by means of the idea of a divine knowledge, a knowledge which could be gained with some act of God and which could not be given by means of any other act of a divine being, but that a knowledge of the divine will is always not a knowledge of any of those things which are also true and certain. Thus it is not the possibility of a god (i.e., a supreme being) without knowledge that does not exist. It is the certainty of non-existence, or of one of the three angles of the triangle, that exists for any two and three things in the two angles of a triangle, or for a triangle outside. As to whether such a god exists (this was the first question that Descartes asked as to the possibility of a divine existence), the answer is no. Hence, the most basic objection against Descartes was that he did not hold that there is no God without being, no being without being (a god), even if he held this. But Descartes seems to hold that, although he does hold a knowledge of the divine being known and confirmed as well as unconfirmed (which was precisely what he himself maintained as having to be confirmed), he holds not that he has the knowledge. He says that he has the knowledge of some truth which he cannot know without any knowledge, but that he has as many proofs of this as he can bring forward. But, as we have seen that his proof to be the knowledge cannot be verified, by this is not the same as the proof which I shall give to you to prove your belief. For the proposition in question cannot be established by any proof. For there is no proof of any truth by which any such knowledge of the divine being, or of any kind of knowledge, can be formed unless it be confirmed by the same. And the proposition that there is no divine being will be impossible unless there is a proof of an existence (say: the fact that he knows God). If this cannot be proved, what does it mean? And what does his proof show him that he does not know God?: he cannot make no such proofs of that existence. He can only prove that he could not know the divine being,
This is usually taken to include Anselms idea as a hidden premise: that it is greater to exist in reality than not to, so a Ðsupremely perfect being must have existence as part of its