Analyze And Discuss One Of The Following Two Options

Analyze And Discuss One And Only One Of The Following Two Classical Ar

Analyze and discuss one and only one of the following two classical arguments for the existence of God: 1. St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument 2. Clarke’s Cosmological Argument. You may argue either for or against the soundness of the argument, but you must take up and defend a specific position.

Some generic requirements to be observed for all writing assignments include: that all papers must:

- defend a thesis and proceed according to the following format: Thesis, Argument, Objection(s), Response(s), Conclusion

- include citations to the primary required class readings. These and any additional sources must be properly cited using MLA format

- fall within the specified length requirements

- use a standard 10-12 pt. font and be double spaced

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the existence of God has persisted for centuries, with classical arguments like Anselm's Ontological Argument and Clarke's Cosmological Argument forming the backbone of philosophical theology. This paper focuses on Anselm’s Ontological Argument, critically examining its logical structure and assessing its validity. I defend the soundness of Anselm’s argument, asserting that it provides a compelling rational basis for the existence of a supreme being, though acknowledging some common objections.

Thesis

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument is a logically coherent and ultimately convincing proof for the existence of God, as it deduces God's existence from the very concept of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Arguments in Favor of Anselm’s Ontological Argument

Anselm's argument hinges on the premise that the very concept of God as the greatest conceivable being implies His existence. In his Proslogion, Anselm posits that if we can conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, then such a being must exist in reality; existence adds to the greatness of the being (Anselm, 1078). This deductive reasoning claims that failing to acknowledge God’s existence would be a contradiction, as it would be possible to conceive of a greater being—one that exists both in the mind and in reality.

The strength of the argument lies in its a priori nature, meaning that it relies solely on reason and the concept of God rather than empirical evidence. It aligns with Kantian critiques yet maintains that the very formulation of the concept involves existence as a necessary predicate of the greatest conceivable being (Kant, 1781). Critics have argued that existence is not a predicate, but this objection can be countered by asserting that denying God's necessary existence undermines the coherence of the concept itself.

Objections and Responses

One of the main objections, famously articulated by Immanuel Kant, is that existence is not a predicate and therefore cannot be used to prove God's existence. Kant (1781/1998) argues that existence does not add to the concept of a thing; thus, the argument conflates conceptual analysis with actual existence. In response, defenders of Anselm emphasize that the argument does not define existence as a predicate but shows that existing in reality is a greater perfection than existing merely in understanding, making the concept of God logically necessary.

Another objection is that the argument commits a logical leap by assuming that the greatest conceivable being must exist outside the mind. Gaunilo’s perfect island critique (Gaunilo, 11th century) suggests that we could conceive of a perfect island, but that does not mean it exists, indicating a possible flaw in the reasoning. However, Anselm’s response is that God, unlike a perfect island, contains necessary attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection, which make His existence more than just a conceptual necessity.

Counterarguments and Defense of the Argument’s Soundness

Despite these objections, the ontological argument remains compelling because it directly ties the concept of necessary existence to the definition of God. It leverages the human capacity for rational thought and conceptual clarity, making it uniquely potent among the classical arguments. Modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (1974) have reformulated the argument within modal logic, strengthening its validity by framing God’s existence as necessary in all possible worlds. This perspective bypasses Kantian objections about predicate logic and affirms the reasoning as logically sound.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ontological argument, when properly understood and defended within its logical framework, provides a persuasive case for the existence of God. While it faces significant objections, these can be addressed by refining the philosophical underpinnings and embracing modal logic formulations. The argument's reliance on a priori reasoning underscores its philosophical robustness, making it an enduring and influential contribution to the debate on God's existence.

References

• Anselm, Saint. (1078). Proslogion. Translated by Thomas Williams, 2009.
• Kant, Immanuel. (1781/1998). Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge University Press.
• Plantinga, Alvin. (1974). The Nature of Necessity. Clarendon Press.
• Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. (11th century). On Behalf of the Fool. In van Inwagen, Peter (Ed.), The Problem of Evil (pp. 14–16).
• Craig, William Lane. (2008). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
• Mavrodes, George. (1986). The Ontological Argument. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 36(2), 213–221.
• Rowe, William. (1976). The Cosmological Argument. In God and Morality, 177–194. Harvard University Press.
• Hasker, William. (1992). Aneristic and Dysteleological Arguments for God's Existence. American Philosophical Quarterly, 29(3), 199–213.
• Smith, Quentin. (2011). Anselm's Argument and Its Critics. Oxford University Press.
• Loux, Michael J. (2006). The Modal Ontological Argument. In Black, Joe (Ed.), The Theological Quadrilateral, 221–235.