I Need Your Help! – Ontological Arguments

I want to invite an open discussion if I may, hopefully a few of you reading this will take your time to record your opinion in the comments section of this blog because to be honest, I’m more than a little confused of why people can possibly think the ontological argument makes sense.

If you’re unfamiliar with the ontological argument (beware that this make me sound rather anti-God which I’m not) it’s an argument for the existence of God that I believe assumes a lot.

The unstated major premise is quite convoluted and I’m not even sure where the fallacy is in it, it just seems to be that it’s beyond fallacious to the point where it’s just plain silly.

In simple terms, for those of you too lazy to google the ontological argument, here’s a three step version of one of its forms.

1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.

2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Is it just a fault of my own reasoning that I cannot see a way in which this argument could ever make one iota of sense, it’s almost post-modernist in its assumption at an obscure system connection imagination and reality, when indeed as a storyteller I should let you know that my imagination is far from close to reality at times.

And that’s when I’m sober.

So, a little help trying to explain why this argument would make sense if you believe it to please.

And if you don’t, let me know too, it’ll help me to feel less ignorant.


3 responses to “I Need Your Help! – Ontological Arguments

  1. I can write you an essay on it if you want. It’s purely rational, and it does make sense. I’m still agnostic, and even Bertrand Russell claimed the argument was ‘sound’, despite remaining an atheist. It’s almost impossible to find fault with the argument because it’s deductive reasoning, rather than evidentially based. But basically, the general consensus is that without a foundation of faith the ontological argument is nothing but word play.

  2. (And just realised I haven’t even explained anything only criticised it. I’m falling back to my A2 philosophy…) Basically, Anselm’s ontological argument is ‘faith seeking understanding’, which is what I meant before, it’s not supposed to sway anyone to religion it’s just his attempt to find rationality in his belief.
    The argument states that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, so basically the best thing we can ever think of. In order to be the best thing that can ever be thought of, it must exist. Imagine a really nice chocolate cake, the most perfect chocolate cake you can think of. The only thing that could possibly make the cake better would be for it to exist in reality and not just in our mind. Therefore, if God really is ttwngcbc then He must exist in reality. That’s the basic argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s