Explain an objection to Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Instructions

Read the assigned reading from the chapter. Then choose ONE of the questions below to answer. Answer the question you chose in a response that is a minimum of 1-2 paragraphs.

Be sure to explain your answers and give reasons for your views. You should cite the textbook and use brief quotations and summaries from the textbook in your response. Do NOT use any other sources besides the textbook.

1. If you are a theist, answer question one (1) on page 72. If you are an agnostic or atheist, answer question two (2) on page 72.
2. What are the relevant similarities and differences between Paley’s watch and the universe? Is the watch analogy a good one? Why or Why not?
3. What is Aquinas’ s first-cause argument? Does it prove the existence of the traditional God of theism? Why or why not?
4. Explain an objection to Anselm’s Ontological Argument (either Kant or Gaunilo).

Explain an objection to Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Introduction

The ontological argument is a form of logic that attempts to prove the existence of God. It’s based on the premise that if something has properties such as being all-knowing and all powerful, then it must exist. There are several objections to this argument, but they do not invalidate it as a proof for the existence of God:

Objection 1. The concept of God is not equivalent to the idea of a being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and so on.

One objection to Anselm’s ontological argument is that the concept itself is not equivalent to the idea of a being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and so on. The objection goes like this:

• Anselm doesn’t prove that God exists; he only proves that if God exists then his existence has some necessary properties (i.e., it would be impossible for him to exist without them).
• If you can prove something else about your concept—for example, that it has certain properties—then you’ve proven something else about your concept instead of proving its existence!

Objection 2. It’s possible to be in a state of ignorance or error about what we know.

The second objection is that it’s possible to be in a state of ignorance or error about what we know.

When it comes to God, this can mean one of three things:

• You don’t know whether or not he exists at all;
• You don’t know if he’s our creator and therefore responsible for everything in the universe (i.e., everything); or
• You don’t know if there are any other gods besides him (i.e., unicorns).

Objection 3. There could be other ways of defining the concept of God without appealing to the concept of an all-knowing being.

In this section, we will see that there are other ways of defining the concept of God. You might wonder how this objection is related to our previous objection and what it has to do with the ontological argument itself.

In order to understand this objection better, let us first look at some definitions for our terms:

• “God” is defined as an all-knowing being who has no physical body (i.e., no material properties).
• “All-knowing being” means that God knows everything about every possible situation in existence and can therefore predict future events based on past experiences (for example, if you have done something bad in the past, then you should expect bad things from future actions).

Now consider these two situations: 1) I know about one possible situation where there exists another person who has no physical body; 2) I know about one possible situation where there exists another person who does not exist at all—he doesn’t exist physically but his mind can still think because he doesn’t need oxygen or food or water like humans do; these two situations differ greatly from each other but they both involve knowledge! Therefore we can conclude that while knowledge might seem like an abstract subject matter too far removed from real life experiences like those mentioned above – knowing something does not necessarily mean having any kind of physical body attached thereto either…

Objection 4. Even if there’s no reason to think that God exists, it doesn’t follow that there’s no reason to believe that he does exist.

The ontological argument is not a proof of God’s existence. It doesn’t prove that he exists, nor does it rule out the possibility that he doesn’t exist. Rather, it attempts to show how things can only be explained if they exist (and what grounds there are for believing in the existence of God).

Objection 4 argues that even if there’s no reason to think that God exists and we don’t have any evidence for him — because our experience only shows us human beings — this doesn’t necessarily mean we should stop believing in him. After all, most people still believe in Santa Claus despite having never seen him! You’d think they’d throw away their Christmas presents instead! But no one does anything but continue believing in Santa Claus because people don’t need proof or evidence before accepting something as true…they just have faith.”

People have objections to the ontological argument but they are not valid

The ontological argument is not a good argument for the existence of God. It’s an attempt to prove the existence of God from his own nature, but it can’t do that because he has no nature.

The ontological argument also fails at proving his non-existence, since there is no way to prove that something doesn’t exist without having first defined what it means for something not to exist in the first place and then using that definition as evidence against him (the concept).

Conclusion

The ontological argument is a powerful tool for explaining the existence of God. It has been used throughout history, and it has proven to be effective for many people who have looked at it skeptically. However, there are still those who object to the argument because they don’t believe that the concept of God can be defined without appealing to something that cannot exist. If you think these objections are valid then you may want to look into other arguments or forms of reasoning instead!