The ontological argument is flawed?
17th October 2012
A question sent in by a school – about the Ontological argument
Do you agree that the ontological argument is flawed because it begins with an inductive definition and does it provide a useful argument to prove the existence of God?
Awesome points. When I present modal ontological argument, as I do with all other, is not to make an atheist theist, but to make atheist understand that theism is (or could be) rationally acceptable position.
The objection that one cannot define something into existence is very true but irrelevant. Anselm would ask where did I define God into existence. Rejecting the argument by rejecting ones’ idea of God seems to be a weak move.
Kant’s objections, if true, I think affects Descartes’ versions of ontological argument. Anselm could agree with Kant that existence is not a predicate, and ask how does that truth affect his case.
Let me know your thoughts.