For many, the idea of existence as a predicate causes problems for the ontological argument. In the argument Anselm states that God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and using logic he comes to the conclusion that God must exist by definition. This can be seen as a strength of the argument since, if it were a valid deduction, it proves the existence of God for both an atheist and a believer. However, Kant counters this argument by saying that existence cannot be predicated of anything. This is because a predicate should be something that enriches our concept of what the thing is like. For example, Kant uses the analogy of a stack of one hundred coins, saying that an imaginary stack of coins has exactly the same value as a stack of one hundred coins existing in reality. Adding existence to the idea does not enrich our concept of said coins or make them better, but will only affirm what is real. So existence cannot be predicated of anything, so it cannot be predicated of God. Since the argument is based on this assumption, it falls apart since the deductions made are based on the entire concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept cannot be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. However, I do not believe this to be valid, since we know nothing with certainty about the properties of God. Aquinas believes that as humans we do not have the intellect to prove the existence of God. Overall, this shows that the ontological argument does not proves the existence of God, since existence cannot be a predicate, so any deduction made from this assumption cannot form a valid conclusion...... middle of paper ......expresses his suspicions about 'argument as "a single data point is missing from the real world". He also says that for this reason the argument is childish. Once again, it comes back to the fact that not everyone will define God the same way, which is an inherent flaw in the argument. Overall, I think the fact that it is an a priori argument helps neither prove nor disprove the argument, as it may prove the argument to believers, for example, but not to atheists. In conclusion, the ontological argument cannot prove the existence of God. , since it is founded on the basis of the fact that you already believe in God. As Kant says, existence cannot be said to be a predicate, which, once taken into account, it undermines the basis of the logic of reasoning. Overall the weaknesses of the argument outweigh the strengths, so no, the ontological argument does not prove the existence of God.
tags