The existence of God since time memorial has been as subject of debate with different philosophers coming up with different expressions to show that God really exists. The ontological argument primarily centers on explaining the real nature of God’s existence. Majority of these arguments are just analytic because most philosophers have based their arguments on their individual perceptions of the world.
For example, Descartes notion of existence of a perfectly supreme being is questionable because, unless one proves that the reality of the Supreme Being is coherent, then the argument is void. It is important to note here that, it is very hard for individuals to evaluate the concept of perfectionism because the idea is relative depending on the conditions at hand.
In realty most ontological arguments are mere descriptions of thoughts or individual perceptions, hence they never directly give insights on the existence of perfect beings. In addition, one main prerequisite of ontological arguments is the selectivity of words as the main mechanism of explaining or proving concepts, depending on the context under which individuals apply them.
Although this is the case, it is important to note that, although ontological arguments use specific vocabulary, the property does mean that all ontological arguments are subject to critical analysis and inquiry. This is because majority of ontological arguments use such vocabularies to prove a point, which in most cases causes a dilemma on the validness of the presented argument.
Consider Anselm’s argument on the existence of God. His definition of God as the greatest conception that the human mind can have implies that, God above all creatures is the most perfect being that exists. Regardless of the title one may accord such a being of great perfection, one main thing is for the argument’s premises to prove that in realty such a being exists.
Anselm’s argument that God is the mightiest being elucidates many questions on the real existence of the perceived God. This is because critical analysis of the question clearly shows that, it is almost impracticable to ascertain that God never exists in reality. This is because from his statement it is not wrong for one to argue that, God is omnipotent, hence can bring into existence anything that humans perceive.
Although this may be the interpretation of the mightiest nature of God, further inquiry on the existence of some things makes it hard to believe it. For instance, can God create a triangular circle? In this like a scenario, logic takes center stage, hence putting into test the ability of God to go against the rules under which philosophy bases logic.
This therefore brings the argument that, God has the ability to do only what others can do, but has no power to break the rules of logic. However because it is hard to ascertain the real qualities of God, one thing remains clear is; God has the power of doing everything (Brown p.1).
On the other hand, the use of the phrase “the most possible being” implies that, no matter the circumstances or prevailing conditions, something that is possible has some aspect of real existence, hence can never cease to have the existence property. This fact therefore supports the argument, hence acting as a proof that in reality God exists.
Majority of existential claims take little consideration of the conceptual nature of things, meaning that proof forms their main mode of ascertaining concepts. In addition, in this like a case, senses take precedence, hence formulation of appropriate mechanisms of proving the same by use of empirical methods.
Although this mechanism can work in both positive and negative existential claims, sometimes it is possible to prove negative existential propositions by applying a reflective mechanism that one should base on the content on ideas at hand. In this regard, the ontological argument is an exception too because its premises try to ascertain the reality of existence.
One cannot deny that to some extent Anselm proves that for real God exist, hence the whole idea is not a human perception. However, one thing is still unclear; there is no clarity in his wrapping up of the idea that, God exists in reality and that only fools can deviate from such an idea. The order of Anselm’s ideas has some qualities of syllogism; hence, some rational flow of arguments, but it is necessary also note that, his arguments lack a firm base of expression.
This is because his ideas on existence of God are cyclical in nature and to some extent seem to originate from some religious background. The derivation of proof from a godly background, to some extent makes his proof void of some aspects of actuality philosophically.
In conclusion, due to the biases presented in Anselm’s arguments, there is a likelihood that God for real does not exist in reality; God’s existence being a mere conception of the human mind. However, basing his argument on faith, then in God’ exists not only in human perceptions, but also in reality.
Brown, Curtis. Arguments for the existence of God: Anselm Ontological argument, 17 Jan. 2001. Web. 9 Feb. 2010.