• Religion -> Philosophy of Religion

• 0 Comment

What are some criticisms of the ontological argument?

Barnard Marousek

The ontological argument is a philosophical argument that seeks to prove the existence of God by purely rational means, based on the concept of God as the greatest possible being. However, this argument has faced several criticisms from philosophers over the centuries.

One of the main criticisms of the ontological argument is that it relies heavily on the assumption that existence is a predicate. This means that it takes the existence of something to be an attribute that can be used to define it. However, many philosophers argue that existence is not a property, but rather a necessary condition for something to be a candidate for having properties. Thus, the ontological argument falls apart when it tries to argue that the concept of God, as the greatest possible being, includes the property of necessary existence.

Another criticism of the ontological argument is that it relies on a circular reasoning. The argument starts with the assumption that God is the greatest possible being, and then tries to derive the conclusion that God must exist, based on this assumption. However, this assumption has not been proved, and cannot be proved, without first proving that God exists. Thus, the ontological argument fails to provide a convincing case for the existence of God.

Another criticism of the ontological argument is that it treats God as a mere abstraction, divorced from the empirical reality of the world. However, many philosophers argue that God cannot be deduced purely from abstract reasoning, and that we can only know God through our experience of the world. Thus, the ontological argument fails to account for the complexity and diversity of religious experiences throughout history.

Furthermore, the ontological argument assumes that the concept of God is univocal, meaning that it has the same meaning for everyone. However, the notion of God is not homogeneous and has been constantly redefined throughout history. Therefore, the assumption that there is a common interpretation of God that we can use as a basis for argumentation seems to be rather questionable.

Lastly, critics of the ontological argument argue that it is a purely logical argument that does not take into account human emotions and experiences. Many religious experiences cannot be reduced to a logical syllogism, and so the ontological argument may fail to capture the essence of what it means to believe in God.

In conclusion, the ontological argument has faced several criticisms throughout history, and these criticisms point to fundamental flaws in the argument itself. While the ontological argument may have some appeal for those who accept its assumptions, it fails to provide a convincing case for the existence of God, and should be approached with skepticism by those who value critical thinking and logical reasoning.