Criticisms of Arguments for God's Existence
@cyberhacker665 (92)
Greece
December 10, 2006 9:44am CST
by cyberhacker665 for mylot community
The Ontological argument for the existence of God is no doubt one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God there is. It was originally proposed by St.Anslem. He said that God is the 'being than which no greater can be conceived'.
This was a very solid foundation to the argument because even an atheist will admit that if a God did exist then he would by definition have to be a 'being than which no greater can be conceived'.
So Anslems Ontological argument can be divided into 6 distinct parts or steps.
1. There are two states of existence. In the mind and in reality
2. Existence in reality aswell as in the mind would be greater than existence in the mind alone.
3. God exists within peoples minds.Whether they choose to believe in God is irrelevant because he is still concievable in peoples minds
4. God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved of by definition and is perfect
5. Because of this God can not exist only in peoples minds and so must exist in reality because God by definition is the greatest being of which can be concieved and a being like this most exist in both to maintain this status
6. Therefore God exists
The main criticism of this argument is that I could concieve of a perfect island. It exists in my mind as perfect. Because it is perfect it must exist because such a perfect island could not only exist in my mind but must also exist in reality.
The point is that anyone can concieve of something perfect and in Gods case Anslem claims that because of this perfection in our mind he must exist in reality. Obviously this completley negates the argument because people can use it to prove the existence of anything perfect they want.
The Ontological argument works very well on paper more so than any other argument however when put into practice we see the same logic can be applied to whatever we want
8 responses
@yannefranco (341)
• Philippines
11 Dec 06
First of all, i think that there is no need for us human being to argue about the existence of God. If you'd say that you don't believe in things that you see then why do you believe that when you breathe there would be an oxygen to fill in your lungs?
@blilley7 (196)
• United States
11 Dec 06
Spoken like a true scientific mind, one that requires provable facts for belief. But see, I add up the truth of my experiences and attribute them to God, whereas others are convinced of coincidence. How many coincidences are necessary before it becomes more than coincidence ? Or will infinity be the answer for one that believes in luck ?
I think that some people, if God ever indroduced Himself, would ask for His ID. I kinda wonder what His ID would look like.
:)
@Tanya8 (1733)
• Canada
28 Dec 06
"How many coincidences are necessary before it becomes more than coincidence?"
I know you're asking a rhetorical question, but for any given coincidence, you can often just count up the odds and have an answer. Sometimes the odds of an event we've experienced happening are very small, but if you do the calculations, you discover that they're definitely finite.
I still enjoy and marvel over happy coincidences. People are all different; for some, attributing coincidences to God seems to make the most sense. Others find chance a more satisfying explanation.
"I think that some people, if God ever indroduced Himself, would ask for His ID."
:) Well, probably not, but you can bet we'd bombard Him with questions.
@rainbow (6761)
•
11 Dec 06
I'm very not convinced about Gods existance as I cannot see how he was created even if he did create everything else.
Even primary school kids ask who is gods mum and dad then.
You did loose me part of the way through that, but I just don't see how he can exist and feel he only exists because people need him to as an explanation for all of this world.
Your island exists in your head so is real to you for a given value of real - just because you think it up doesn't mean that it is somewhere you can visit - except in your head, although nothing is impossible.
Also my island might also be perfect but different from yours (so not perfect?) but still perfect for a given amount of perfect and still real for a variable value of real.
If this is the case does that mean that God is real - for a given value of real because we would all see him/her differently. Thus we all believe in god in our own perfectly acceptable way - so why do humans use him/her as an excuse to fight as other people don't believe in the exact way we do?
Sounds like cunnundrum wrapped in an enigma to me.
Have I missed the point altoghter? I feel I have got knotted up in here somewhere.
Hope this made sense,gosh I'm confused!
@pondle (3)
•
11 Dec 06
You say: "I cannot see how (God) was created even if he did create eveything else." But this isn't really a problem. Scientists believe that time is a characteristic of our universe and does not exist outside it. Therefore cause and effect don't exist outside our universe either. This means that the question of how god was created doesn't even arise. God simply is.
@padewy (129)
• United States
11 Dec 06
it is impossible to prove their is a God you just have to have aith in knowing that there is a God. Having fiath in God is the only proof you need. These theories trying to prove the existence of God is flawed one way or another. The one truth in life is what one Greek philospher once said. "I think therefore I am." ( I think it was Descartes)
@zarden (107)
• Philippines
11 Dec 06
i think we should not argue abou the existence of god because of the reason itself, hes the god, and god dont want us to argue because of him god love us all, and we should love each other as well, we are all brothers and sisters, let love and god live in our heart.
@lohithvamsi (60)
• India
11 Dec 06
by cyberhacker665 for mylot community The Ontological argument for the existence of God is no doubt one of the most effective arguments for the existence of God there is. It was originally proposed by St.Anslem. He said that God is the 'being than which no greater can be conceived'. This was a very solid foundation to the argument because even an atheist will admit that if a God did exist then he would by definition have to be a 'being than which no greater can be conceived'. So Anslems Ontological argument can be divided into 6 distinct parts or steps. 1. There are two states of existence. In the mind and in reality 2. Existence in reality aswell as in the mind would be greater than existence in the mind alone. 3. God exists within peoples minds.Whether they choose to believe in God is irrelevant because he is still concievable in peoples minds 4. God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved of by definition and is perfect 5. Because of this God can not exist only in peoples minds and so must exist in reality because God by definition is the greatest being of which can be concieved and a being like this most exist in both to maintain this status 6. Therefore God exists The main criticism of this argument is that I could concieve of a perfect island. It exists in my mind as perfect. Because it is perfect it must exist because such a perfect island could not only exist in my mind but must also exist in reality. The point is that anyone can concieve of something perfect and in Gods case Anslem claims that because of this perfection in our mind he must exist in reality. Obviously this completley negates the argument because people can use it to prove the existence of anything perfect they want. The Ontological argument works very well on paper more so than any other argument however when put into practice we see the same logic can be applied to whatever we want
@win0120ph (135)
• Philippines
11 Dec 06
I know there is a God because he had manifested Himself in my life through the many little miracles that happen in my life. No other argument can lead me otherwise.
@pondle (3)
•
10 Dec 06
Thanks for explaining this so clearly. I can't say I'm impressed with St Anslem's reasoning though! It sounds like that old argument which purportedly proves that a cat has nine tails. I think you've debunked it very well in your post.
Personally, I don't think that it's (presently) possible to either prove or disprove the existence of god. We can however experience something which *seems* very much like god through practices such as meditation. It is because of personal experience such as this that I believe in god - not because of dodgy logic like St Anslem's.
Simon
The Secret Of Life
http://secretoflife.typepad.com/
