Jump to content


Anselm's Ontological Proof for the Existence of God in Context

  • Please log in to reply
No replies to this topic

#1 charmender



  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 08 April 2019 - 07:34 AM

Anselm's ontological proof is typically interpreted as purporting to show that upon careful reflection of our concept of God, we find ourselves with a rational obligation to assent to the proposition that 'God exists.' It is then supposed further that the argument attempts to establish a conclusion about God's existence as such--   Sarkari Result Pnr Status Showbox hence the name "ontological argument." This latter interpretation, in my estimation, is what serves as the basis for charges of circularity against Anselm's argument, for the premises appear to presuppose God, essential existence, and the like, which is ultimately what Anselm intends to demonstrate, or so the story goes.

In what follows, I provide a reconstruction of Anselm's argument that both i) avoids the familiar charges of circularity, and ii) is exegetically sensitive to the ontological proof as Anselm wrote it down. If this interpretation is correct, then Anselm's conclusion has more to do with our ontological commitments (in this case whether or not we should be ontologically committed to God) than with whether or not our concept 'God' entails the existence of God.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users