- With reference to Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his argument.
Anselm’s argument on God was that God is the being that is greater than anyone can imagine, and that if one thinks of a great being, that being is not God since such a great being can not be thought of, because his existence can not be proven using any logical or scientific means. It in a way falls under the category of Agnostic Theism. In my personal opinion, if there were to be God, I would also think that his existence would be unmatched for our intellectual capacity, to get a grip of. Since he is the omnipotent and omniscient being, he would arrange this world in a way, that in spite of what we try to do, to arrive at the truth of the things, it would still be impossible for us to get a hold of it. This is what possesses the challenge too, probably, that you maintain faith in something that you can not see, or feel, and you entrust it with your morals, ethical beliefs, and in a way with your life, as well.
According to Guanilo’s counter argument, if there were to be a perfect island, greater than none which could be imagined, and it only existed as an idea in mind and in reality would be greater than one which existed only in the mind, then no island that could be imagined would be greater than the greatest island that exists in reality, and since we can not imagine one greater, this would warrant the island’s existence, which would be false. So with this argument, we can see that this kind of reasoning could be applied to anything, and therefore warrant its existence, as long as it is of great value, such that can not even be sought of, and the greatest version would only exist in reality, without us grasping and/or understanding the existence of it. After reading his argument, I could see how Anselm’s ideology could be rejected, or rebutted. It certainly makes Anslem’s ontological argument flawed, invalid and unsound. Therefore, his reasoning could not be used to prove the existence of the almighty.
In conclusion, the existence of God is an unwinnable argument. It is like a never-ending loop hole, that once you go down to, it gets harder to get to the truth. There will always be arguments justifying his existence, and then there will be counter arguments, questioning it. For instance, determinism – the term that suggests that all events, as well as human actions are predetermined, since the god is omniscient and omnipotent, so in that case can we really hold humans accountable for their actions, if they never had the freedom to make decisions in the first place?