Can the Existence of God be Proven Ontologically Essay

Can the Existence of God be Proven Ontologically - Essay Example One of such theories is the ontological argument; in this paper I will argue that this theory is not enough to prove the existence of God. The ontological argument is priori; it seeks to explain the existence of a greater being using logic as to what the appreciative of the superior being that is God is. The theory was popularized by Anselm who used psalms 14 as his reference point and addressed the fool who says in his heart that God does not exist. He states that the fool hears and understands that there is a greater being although he does not understand its existence. Anselm purports that if it exists in one’s understanding then it can be made to exist in reality, which carries more weight. He clearly states that God is a being without which nothing greater exists and the fool understands this but does not believe that God does truly exist. Anselm’s theory is more or less based on deduction if the fool understands that a greater being does exist then it must exist, o therwise he would be contradicting himself. This theory is unsatisfactory in proving God’s existence since it claims that assuming that God does not exist leads to a contradiction, He must therefore exist. The theory seems to dictate that God does exist by the virtue that He must exist, since nothing greater can be conceived than Him, it illustrates that God’s existence is necessary since the thought of Him not existing is inconceivable. The idea that the existence of God is necessary does not proof that He actually exists; it is more like forcing an issue down someone’s throat and expecting that person to believe it and accept it as the truth. Because He carries the title God, the theory then seems to insinuate that it s wrong to claim that God does not exist. For something to exist, the concept must correspond to reality, but Anselm’s theory is based on abstract facts and this does not proof that a greater being does exist. A monk by the name Gaunilo, a lso attempted to refute the claims by Anselm describing an island that can be said to be ore excellent than any other existing island. He goes ahead to argue that an island that that exists is much better than a non-existent one, so therefore the island must exist by definition. The assumption that one can define anything that he wants and it will exist corresponds to the ontological theory. It would be therefore correct to assume that the devil also exists by the necessity that he must. Since God does exist and he is all good and presumably much greater than conceived then the devil must also exist as that which nothing worse can be conceived. This theory therefore holds no water and does not prove God’s existence since it would then show that one can imagine and assume anything in life and it shall be a reality which is not the case. Alvin Plantiga also decided to remodel the ontological argument by use of logic, claiming that concepts must either be necessary, impossible o r possible. In his concepts, he claims that there is a world that possibly exists with a being that is maximally great, meaning that He exists in all possible worlds and therefore must exist in our world as well. This argument has no much difference from the Anselm’s argument because what it does is state that the greater being is a possibility. This claim is debatable meaning that it does not have any tangible proof to support its basis. The ontological argument clearly shows that God only survives in the mind, which means if God is imagined and a creation of the mind, then something greater than God can be imagined. But one should not forget that this is all in the mind and not actually existing in real