Nonetheless, his objection has historical significance and is often cited by contemporary philosophers as good reason to reject the ontological argument. Kant thought the ontological argument was flawed. Any argument for the existence of God based on the proposition that a God that exists in reality is greater than a God that only in the imagination is based on a confusion.
These are mostly toy examples. But they serve to highlight the deficiencies which more complex examples also share. God is a being which has every perfection. This is true as a matter of definition. Existence is a perfection.
I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists.
I cannot conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists. It is possible that that God exists. God is not a contingent being, i. Hence, it is necessary that God exists.
See MalcolmHartshorneand Plantinga for closely related arguments. Hence, the existent perfect being is existent. Hence, God is existent, i. The last step is justified by the observation that, as a matter of definition, if there is exactly one existent perfect being, then that being is God.
See Rescher for a live version of this argument. Whenever a bunch of things exist, their mereological sum also exists. Therefore the sum of all things exists. Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists.
Say that a God-property is a property that is possessed by God in all and only those worlds in which God exists. Not all properties are God properties.
Any property entailed by a collection of God-properties is itself a God-property. The God-properties include necessary existence, necessary omnipotence, necessary omniscience, and necessary perfect goodness.
Hence, there is a necessarily existent, necessarily omnipotent, necessarily omniscient, and necessarily perfectly good being namely, God.Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God Anselm’s argument is an a priori argument; that is, it is an argument that is independent of experience and based solely on concepts and logical relations, like a mathematical.
Anselm's Ontological Argument. Anselm's ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists.
Since the ontological argument ultimately reduces to an axiom, the source of an objection according to Descartes' diagnosis is the failure of the objector to perceive this axiom clearly and distinctly.
Abstract: Anselms's Ontological Argument is stated, and a few standard objections to his argument are listed. Objection of "Existence is not a Predicate":In the consideration of any idea one cannot get outside of the conception to reality; Anselm's argument compares the conception of existing in the mind with the conception of existing in.
Question: "What is the Ontological argument for the existence of God?" Answer: The ontological argument is an argument based not on observation of the world (like the cosmological and teleological arguments) but rather on reason alone.
Specifically, the ontological argument reasons from the study of being (ontology). To conclude I have found that, through Kant’s property based objection, Anselm’s ontological argument fails to provide a decent way of proving Gods existence. Because Existence cannot be seen to be a property then the ontological argument fails.