The topic on the existence of God is perhaps one of the most equivocal topics that have generated an immense debate amongst various population segments all around the globe. In fact, this topic has evolved into one of the most contentious topics all over the globe. Notably, there exists various arguments postulated regarding the existence of God. Nonetheless, the ontological argument devised by Anselm on Gods existence is perhaps one of the most substantive arguments that support that notion on Gods existence. Anselm’s argument on God’s existence asserts that Gods existence is indeed true based on the notion that there exists no other creature that can be imagined to be greater than God. Precisely, the supreme nature of God is based on personal ideologies conceived in the mind (Nagasawa 24). As such, an ideology that is existent in mind and in reality is more supreme than any other idea. Deductively, it is impossible to imagine of any other existing creature that is greater than God since the mind has already developed the ideology that indeed God is the Supreme Being. This analysis justifies the notion that indeed God exists. In a nutshell, the ontological perspective on God’s existence is based on the notion that God is an infinite being; hence, there no other being that can exist beyond infinity.
Criticism of the ontological perspective on God’s existence
While much has been hypothesized regarding the substantive nature of Anselm’s ontological perspective on God’s existence, it is of immense significant to note that this perspective in Gods existence fails to convince every on God’s existence based on the notable discrepancies that are ardently notable in this perspective. More importantly, Anselm’s perspective on God’s existence is based on ideologies conceived by the mind. This means that failure to develop such thoughts means that God is inexistent (Nagasawa 92). As such, this perspective is based on mere thinking, which may not be developed by everyone. In addition, the ontological theory lacks substantive supporting notions based on the fact that infinity is not something that exists in reality. Instead, infinite things are mere illusion that may not be existent after all.
Alternative position
An alternative and convincing position that should have been taken by the ontological perspective on God’s existence aligns with the modal logic on God’s existence. Arguably, the modal logic is more convincing than the ontological perspective on God’s existence. The modal logic perspective on God’s existence notes that if a single positive feature of a given creature gives an implication that the feature exists, then the postulated creature exists. Notably, God possesses positive features, which means that the perceived positive features of God are indeed true. From this analysis, Anselm’s perspective on Gods existence are relatively similar with the modal logic perspective (Nagasawa 64). However, the modal logic perspective is an alternative to the ontological perspective as it is more substantive and logical.
Immanuel Kant criticism of the ontological perspective on Gods existence
Immanuel Kant occurs as one of the philosophers who devised some criticism on the ontological perspective on Gods existence. Kant criticizes the ontological theory Gods existence by asserting that God is a supreme being whom we cannot conceive ideas on his nature on our mind. This disapproves the ontological perspective on God’s existence based on the fact that the ontological perspective on God’s existence is based on mere conceptual ideologies conceived in the mind (Nagasawa 29). Of immense significance is the fact that conceiving the thought of a being that is supreme than the initially perceived Supreme Being disapproves the supremacy of the initial being, which disapproves of any existence of any supreme being. This analysis depicts the discrepancies noted by Kant regarding the ontological perspective on Gods existence.
Work Cited
Nagasawa, Yujin. The Existence of God: A Philosophical Introduction. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011. Print.
