The Ontological argument states as follows: "Think of God as an entity, of which no greater entity can be imagined.
However, if God did not exist, then something could be imagined that is greater than (a non-existent) God, namely a God that does exist.
The possibility that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical paradox: that there both is and is not something that can be conceived that is greater than God. There is, because it's possible to imagine a God that does exist. There isn't, because it's impossible to imagine something greater than the greatest thing imaginable.
A theory that makes a logical absurdity, though, must be untrue. The hypothesis that God does not exist, therefore, is false; and God does exist."
The above type of argument is a time-wasting exercise is useless sophistry; one of the weakest arguments for God's existence.
The following seem much stronger:
1) Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of Atheism.)From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.Is there evidence against Evolution
God's wisdom seen in His creations
2) Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.
3) Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to worship something greater than themselves. No ancient society ever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.
4) Tradition: There are events in human history which cannot be explained without God. Many people have their subjective stories that bend them in the direction of theism, but there are also historical events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.
5) Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:
a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.
- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.
- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.
c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.
- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.
d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are not minuscule, could it happen, given enough time?
- This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.
The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the real chances of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by the curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)
e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.
- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."
The ontological argument of the exsitance of god is supported by abrahmic religions. It is not widely practiced in the current day.
The ontological argument is a deductive argument. It aims to prove the existence of God based on the concept of God as a necessary being. It uses logical reasoning to demonstrate that the existence of God is a necessary consequence of the definition of God as a perfect being.
There are many options for books on ontological arguments at Amazon, including The Many-Faced Argument: Recent Studies on the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. Barnes and Noble and Borders also offer a selection.
The Ontological Argument
The ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that is based on the concept of existence or being. It suggests that the very concept of God being the greatest possible being necessarily implies his existence. This argument has been presented and debated by various philosophers throughout history, such as Anselm of Canterbury and René Descartes.
It is a philosophical argument that God exists. While many philosopher's theories had many differences in derivation and reasoning, the conclusion to all ontological arguments was that the superior being of God is a reality.
The ontological argument does not mean that God does not exist it is just an argument based upon the concept of God itself, this topic is a controversial topic and is often led into believing the wrong way one time or another.
The first philosopher to propose an ontological argument is still up for debate. Some think that Greek philosophers, such as Plato, first argued it. The mainstream view is that the ontological argument was first developed by St. Anselm. Others believe that the Islamic philosopher Avicenna was the first, and may others view the philosopher Descartes as being the first.
"The Stanford book on philosophy and the Anselm's Ontological argument are your best best. To look for the best deals, refer to amazon or walmart would be the best bet. Make sure to check for user reviews though!"
The ontological argument posits that the concept of God as a perfect being necessitates His existence. It argues that if we can conceive of a being that possesses all perfections (including existence), then that being must exist in reality. Critics argue that existence is not a property that adds to the perfection of a being and that the argument relies heavily on the assumption that existence is a predicate.
A premise is used as a starting point for a line of reasoning or argument!
A basis is something upon which something is based - a starting point, base or foundation, such as for an argument.