Category: Ontology

Abstract

The term data model refers to a construction methodology for a given database. There are two primary methods that can be used to come up with such a model, these are, Object model and Entity Relationship (Greiner et al, 2001). The objective of the data model is to ensure that the presentation of all the information needed by the database is complete and accurate. Ontology is the main focus and this report attempts to strike a comparison between the ontology models and the object oriented models with an aim of showing the areas in which ontology modeling is more superior. It should also be noted that there are some sort of similarities between the objects as seen in the object models and concepts/classes that are found in the ontology models (Gruber, 1993). Ontology may also assist in construction of a given object model. In essence object modeling is the key part of general data modeling, while ontology carries the concept that constitutes the foundation of its knowledge. Due to the close linkages between ontology and the recently developed object-oriented models, it is advisable to adopt strategies that would have the current object-oriented software design approaches integrated with the ongoing ontology development.

Background

This is the organized representation of the information that the database requires including the information objects, the linkages in between the information objects and the guidelines that are used in the running of the relevant objects operations (Gruber, 1993). The data models provide the link between the ideas that constitutes the practical real world activities and the actual representation of those ideas in a database. The designing of the database normally takes five simple step; Planning, concept development, logical designing, physical designing and finally the implementation of the completed database content. Data model gets its input data from the first database design stage of planning. At this stage the software experts gets the data concerning the database through reviews of the available documents and direct feedback from the end-users. The only output from a data model is a representation of information structures that are referred to as object model, this is preferably in a picture form picture the picture can pass the message more easily than the other forms like the written form. The next step is to model and analyze the objects by use of object diagrams (Gruber, 1993). These object diagrams can undergo some review by the end users and the software experts to ensure that they are complete, accurate and validate their respective attributes. For example, given this information; Teacher teaches in a number of subjects that are allocated by the school. As to whether teacher should be an object or an attribute in the model will depend on the purpose into which the database will be employed in which it may qualify as an attribute in some of the uses and as an object in others.

Ontology is the idea that is utilized by the domain users uniquely to pass important information. This is becoming a very important tool to cope with information of diverse forms and has therefore become the preferred method of data modeling in all the fields of software engineering (Greiner et al, 2001). Ontology has also found great significance in the semantic web construction that utilizes high levels of information structures. Ontology is also well known in the field of philosophy researches since 1960s, as well as in the intelligence being mainly focused in knowledge modeling. In broader terms the term ontology basically refers to clear specification of a conceptualization, primarily for a domain (Maedche, 2003).

Thesis

This paper explores the nature of ontology as it outlines the similarities and the main differences between ontology models and other data models.

Ontology modeling versus data model and object oriented models

Ontology and data modeling are known to have a representation of a domain knowledge base, however they show basic differences based on their practical applications, the overall knowledge contents, demonstrative power and the level of their operations (Gruber, 1993). The variation of Ontology from data modeling can be based on its over all dependency on the application in which it has been designed for. Basically data models are meant to accomplish specific purposes and for this reason they largely show dependence on the task that they are meant to perform. In data modeling, the users and objectives of the model dictates the model processing as well as the degree in which detailed description by the model. In the other hand ontology is always generic and is not driven by the task requirements (Gruber, 1993). Very minimum task considerations are evaluated during its design phase. For example, a significant attribute of a human gene is that it offers a unique protein based code. In case this knowledge is not required by the application in case of data modeling, it can be excluded from the design. However, in ontology a representation of agreeable and shared information is essential. Therefore in our gene ontology it is very significant to include the represented protein genes. In that way, the ontology shall be comprised of quite generic information that can often be reused later in other diverse applications to fulfill other different purposes, hence giving ontology a superior advantage over the other models (Spyns et al 2002).

Another way in which ontology differs from the other models is on the quantity and type of knowledge coverage. Whereas data models centers on the establishment of linkages between the database and their respective concepts, the ontology is mainly focused on comprehending by the user, of the knowledge displayed by the model (Greiner et al, 2001). Therefore, ontology is a complete and precise representation of ideas and their linkages. It is considered as the driving coding of a computer network, this is because the knowledge that is considered to be true through a given domain needs not to change significantly in terms of the way it gets organized for storage in a computer network.

Ontology has been seen to have a greater expressive power potential than the other models. Whereas the data models are constructed using common language, ontology constructs utilizes much more expressive language that has the potential of giving expressions to other diverse variables for example taxonomy and inferencing. Ontology model therefore, has the design that keeps the domain conceptualization at high level of precision (Greiner et al, 2001).

Another powerful tool and attribute of ontology is that due to its generic nature and its unique independence from the task and purpose, it operates at a relatively high degree of abstraction (Maedche, 2003). The other data modeling comparatively operates at low levels. For example, a data model can represent a car database based on its physical attributes and a different spare parts database for the same cars probably with some similar attributes like the make and model of the car. This data based models will only have a very narrowed and fixed views of the overall dimension in which the end user would need to be reflected. However the ontology option of the car and spare parts databases can be designed in such a way that the common knowledge between the two databases is linked together for expressive sharing. The shared knowledge and attributes of both databases will run at high levels of abstraction and at the same time, the design will be independent from the specific inbuilt applications that run on both databases. These differences between the ontology and data models are useful tools for modelers and designers for they guide their work in maintaining focus on the stipulated objectives of the desired project (Maedche, 2003).

Ontology modeling parts

The term ontology refers to the study of the types of elements that exist or have the potential of existing in some given domain (Gruber, 1993). Ontology therefore offers a description of the primary concepts within a domain and outlines the relationship among such concepts. Ontology basically consists of ideological concepts and the characteristics of each of these concepts with a description of the concept features and their restrictions on facets. Following is a discussion of ontology model parts that makes it more semantically richer than the other models.

Concept/class

A class represents objects concepts that can either be in groups, sets or collections of objects. The concepts need to be closely linked to the objects and linkages in the domain of interest. The concepts in most cases are represented by nouns for the objects and verbs for the relationships in the description of the domain. Concepts of related terms are well defined in a class and each class can have many subclasses (Gruber, 1993). A class description defines slots and values of the class itself.

Slots/ Facets

Most terms, have own slots that are used to describe the characteristics of the term. We sometimes have instances slot that describes a characteristic of an instances of the class. A slot is used to describe linkages between two terms. The first term must be the domain of the slot and the second term the range of the slot. For example corolla could be represented as a slot such that its domain was car models and its rage was Toyota model. The scope of ontology is defined by a continuous generation of terms. The scope is determined by what we finally decide to include and exclude in the definition. Characteristics of classes can be represented by slots and restrictions on characteristics or linkages between classes and or slots by slot facets (Greiner et al, 2001).

Axioms

Sentences belonging to the 1^st order logic that cannot be represented using slots and values on a frame are referred to as axioms (Gruber, 1993). They are generally taken to be true with no documentation of proof. Axioms are represented in prefix form indicating its logic status. (Gruber, 1993).

Instances

These are particular entities derived from the domain base to comprise the primary elements of ontology as contained in defined objects like cars and abstract objects like words. (Gruber, 1993).

Relationship

A relation indicates a linkage between two or more terms in a model. If the linkage is only between two terms then it is normally referred to as a slot or binary relation. On the other had we have a description of relationship of n terms in that there is an n^th term that corresponds to a given group of the n-1 terms, such a linkage is known as function (Gruber, 1993). Introduction of relations in ontology constitutes conversions of structures that are easy to comprehend into complex ones that are difficult to interpret. As a result, entities may have more than one source. Ontologies further refine the modeled semantics by increasing the number of parts in the relationship in such a way that they become useful in answering particular questions that are based on a specific domain. (Gruber, 1993).

Functions

A relation that relates a given set of terms to specified second set of terms is referred as a function. In such a relation, there are no group-sets of n terms are comprised of the same initial n-1 terms. A special function that comprises of only two terms can be referred to as a slot (Gruber, 1993).

Standards and language

Semantic web is one of the most recent online advancement which works as an extension of the existing system and helps in giving quality definitions of activities and linkages that enable users to work in cooperation. Ontology modeling is so much involved in formation of description and relationships of high precision on the web information and thereby creating workable linkages for users at different geographical stations. Therefore semantic web can significantly be seen as a set of ontologies that create a web environment where users can make use of availed objects and present it for re-use by different applications. (Gruber, 1993).

Ontology based illustrations

Examples based on the ontology model are illustrated here to demonstrate the modeling concepts that represent part of trust ontology. Figure 1 depicts a human relationship that links various entities that are specific to linkages between the provider and the client so as to constitute a typical business relationship. Figure 2 indicates instances of the depicted business relationship. It can be deduced from the ontology illustration that the partnership between Carol and Joy is that of business relationship with a trust value indicated as 4.

Conclusion

This paper has explored the ontology modeling and has compared the model with the other data based model to critically examine its superiority over them. The attributes of the ontology model have been represented in details to show the characteristics that makes the model semantically richer than the other models.

List of references

Greiner, R., Darken, C. and Santoso, N. I. (2001): Efficient reasoning. ACM Computing Surveys 33(1):130.

Gruber, T.R. (1993): A translation approach to portable ontology specification, Knowledge Acquisition: pp. 199-220.

Maedche, A.D. (2003): Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web. Norwell, Massachusetts, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Spyns, P., Meersman, R. and Jarrar, M. (2002): Data modelling versus Ontology engineering. SIGMOD Record 31(4):7-12.

Abstract

The term data model refers to a construction methodology for a given database. There are two primary methods that can be used to come up with such a model, these are, Object model and Entity Relationship (Greiner et al, 2001). The objective of the data model is to ensure that the presentation of all the information needed by the database is complete and accurate. Ontology is the main focus and this report attempts to strike a comparison between the ontology models and the object oriented models with an aim of showing the areas in which ontology modeling is more superior. It should also be noted that there are some sort of similarities between the objects as seen in the object models and concepts/classes that are found in the ontology models (Gruber, 1993). Ontology may also assist in construction of a given object model. In essence object modeling is the key part of general data modeling, while ontology carries the concept that constitutes the foundation of its knowledge. Due to the close linkages between ontology and the recently developed object-oriented models, it is advisable to adopt strategies that would have the current object-oriented software design approaches integrated with the ongoing ontology development.

Background

This is the organized representation of the information that the database requires including the information objects, the linkages in between the information objects and the guidelines that are used in the running of the relevant objects operations (Gruber, 1993). The data models provide the link between the ideas that constitutes the practical real world activities and the actual representation of those ideas in a database. The designing of the database normally takes five simple step; Planning, concept development, logical designing, physical designing and finally the implementation of the completed database content. Data model gets its input data from the first database design stage of planning. At this stage the software experts gets the data concerning the database through reviews of the available documents and direct feedback from the end-users. The only output from a data model is a representation of information structures that are referred to as object model, this is preferably in a picture form picture the picture can pass the message more easily than the other forms like the written form. The next step is to model and analyze the objects by use of object diagrams (Gruber, 1993). These object diagrams can undergo some review by the end users and the software experts to ensure that they are complete, accurate and validate their respective attributes. For example, given this information; Teacher teaches in a number of subjects that are allocated by the school. As to whether teacher should be an object or an attribute in the model will depend on the purpose into which the database will be employed in which it may qualify as an attribute in some of the uses and as an object in others.

Ontology is the idea that is utilized by the domain users uniquely to pass important information. This is becoming a very important tool to cope with information of diverse forms and has therefore become the preferred method of data modeling in all the fields of software engineering (Greiner et al, 2001). Ontology has also found great significance in the semantic web construction that utilizes high levels of information structures. Ontology is also well known in the field of philosophy researches since 1960s, as well as in the intelligence being mainly focused in knowledge modeling. In broader terms the term ontology basically refers to clear specification of a conceptualization, primarily for a domain (Maedche, 2003).

Thesis

This paper explores the nature of ontology as it outlines the similarities and the main differences between ontology models and other data models.

Ontology modeling versus data model and object oriented models

Ontology and data modeling are known to have a representation of a domain knowledge base, however they show basic differences based on their practical applications, the overall knowledge contents, demonstrative power and the level of their operations (Gruber, 1993). The variation of Ontology from data modeling can be based on its over all dependency on the application in which it has been designed for. Basically data models are meant to accomplish specific purposes and for this reason they largely show dependence on the task that they are meant to perform. In data modeling, the users and objectives of the model dictates the model processing as well as the degree in which detailed description by the model. In the other hand ontology is always generic and is not driven by the task requirements (Gruber, 1993). Very minimum task considerations are evaluated during its design phase. For example, a significant attribute of a human gene is that it offers a unique protein based code. In case this knowledge is not required by the application in case of data modeling, it can be excluded from the design. However, in ontology a representation of agreeable and shared information is essential. Therefore in our gene ontology it is very significant to include the represented protein genes. In that way, the ontology shall be comprised of quite generic information that can often be reused later in other diverse applications to fulfill other different purposes, hence giving ontology a superior advantage over the other models (Spyns et al 2002).

Another way in which ontology differs from the other models is on the quantity and type of knowledge coverage. Whereas data models centers on the establishment of linkages between the database and their respective concepts, the ontology is mainly focused on comprehending by the user, of the knowledge displayed by the model (Greiner et al, 2001). Therefore, ontology is a complete and precise representation of ideas and their linkages. It is considered as the driving coding of a computer network, this is because the knowledge that is considered to be true through a given domain needs not to change significantly in terms of the way it gets organized for storage in a computer network.

Ontology has been seen to have a greater expressive power potential than the other models. Whereas the data models are constructed using common language, ontology constructs utilizes much more expressive language that has the potential of giving expressions to other diverse variables for example taxonomy and inferencing. Ontology model therefore, has the design that keeps the domain conceptualization at high level of precision (Greiner et al, 2001).

Another powerful tool and attribute of ontology is that due to its generic nature and its unique independence from the task and purpose, it operates at a relatively high degree of abstraction (Maedche, 2003). The other data modeling comparatively operates at low levels. For example, a data model can represent a car database based on its physical attributes and a different spare parts database for the same cars probably with some similar attributes like the make and model of the car. This data based models will only have a very narrowed and fixed views of the overall dimension in which the end user would need to be reflected. However the ontology option of the car and spare parts databases can be designed in such a way that the common knowledge between the two databases is linked together for expressive sharing. The shared knowledge and attributes of both databases will run at high levels of abstraction and at the same time, the design will be independent from the specific inbuilt applications that run on both databases. These differences between the ontology and data models are useful tools for modelers and designers for they guide their work in maintaining focus on the stipulated objectives of the desired project (Maedche, 2003).

Ontology modeling parts

The term ontology refers to the study of the types of elements that exist or have the potential of existing in some given domain (Gruber, 1993). Ontology therefore offers a description of the primary concepts within a domain and outlines the relationship among such concepts. Ontology basically consists of ideological concepts and the characteristics of each of these concepts with a description of the concept features and their restrictions on facets. Following is a discussion of ontology model parts that makes it more semantically richer than the other models.

Concept/class

A class represents objects concepts that can either be in groups, sets or collections of objects. The concepts need to be closely linked to the objects and linkages in the domain of interest. The concepts in most cases are represented by nouns for the objects and verbs for the relationships in the description of the domain. Concepts of related terms are well defined in a class and each class can have many subclasses (Gruber, 1993). A class description defines slots and values of the class itself.

Slots/ Facets

Most terms, have own slots that are used to describe the characteristics of the term. We sometimes have instances slot that describes a characteristic of an instances of the class. A slot is used to describe linkages between two terms. The first term must be the domain of the slot and the second term the range of the slot. For example corolla could be represented as a slot such that its domain was car models and its rage was Toyota model. The scope of ontology is defined by a continuous generation of terms. The scope is determined by what we finally decide to include and exclude in the definition. Characteristics of classes can be represented by slots and restrictions on characteristics or linkages between classes and or slots by slot facets (Greiner et al, 2001).

Axioms

Sentences belonging to the 1^st order logic that cannot be represented using slots and values on a frame are referred to as axioms (Gruber, 1993). They are generally taken to be true with no documentation of proof. Axioms are represented in prefix form indicating its logic status. (Gruber, 1993).

Instances

These are particular entities derived from the domain base to comprise the primary elements of ontology as contained in defined objects like cars and abstract objects like words. (Gruber, 1993).

Relationship

A relation indicates a linkage between two or more terms in a model. If the linkage is only between two terms then it is normally referred to as a slot or binary relation. On the other had we have a description of relationship of n terms in that there is an n^th term that corresponds to a given group of the n-1 terms, such a linkage is known as function (Gruber, 1993). Introduction of relations in ontology constitutes conversions of structures that are easy to comprehend into complex ones that are difficult to interpret. As a result, entities may have more than one source. Ontologies further refine the modeled semantics by increasing the number of parts in the relationship in such a way that they become useful in answering particular questions that are based on a specific domain. (Gruber, 1993).

Functions

A relation that relates a given set of terms to specified second set of terms is referred as a function. In such a relation, there are no group-sets of n terms are comprised of the same initial n-1 terms. A special function that comprises of only two terms can be referred to as a slot (Gruber, 1993).

Standards and language

Semantic web is one of the most recent online advancement which works as an extension of the existing system and helps in giving quality definitions of activities and linkages that enable users to work in cooperation. Ontology modeling is so much involved in formation of description and relationships of high precision on the web information and thereby creating workable linkages for users at different geographical stations. Therefore semantic web can significantly be seen as a set of ontologies that create a web environment where users can make use of availed objects and present it for re-use by different applications. (Gruber, 1993).

Ontology based illustrations

Examples based on the ontology model are illustrated here to demonstrate the modeling concepts that represent part of trust ontology. Figure 1 depicts a human relationship that links various entities that are specific to linkages between the provider and the client so as to constitute a typical business relationship. Figure 2 indicates instances of the depicted business relationship. It can be deduced from the ontology illustration that the partnership between Carol and Joy is that of business relationship with a trust value indicated as 4.

Conclusion

This paper has explored the ontology modeling and has compared the model with the other data based model to critically examine its superiority over them. The attributes of the ontology model have been represented in details to show the characteristics that makes the model semantically richer than the other models.

List of references

Greiner, R., Darken, C. and Santoso, N. I. (2001): Efficient reasoning. ACM Computing Surveys 33(1):130.

Gruber, T.R. (1993): A translation approach to portable ontology specification, Knowledge Acquisition: pp. 199-220.

Maedche, A.D. (2003): Ontology Learning for the Semantic Web. Norwell, Massachusetts, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Spyns, P., Meersman, R. and Jarrar, M. (2002): Data modelling versus Ontology engineering. SIGMOD Record 31(4):7-12.

The introduction

While discussing the teleological argument for Gods existence, some fundamentals of the philosophical issue must be considered. First of all, it is necessary to point out that there are a lot of contradictions concerning the existence of God. For instance, one is to keep in mind that the so-called ontological vision is recognized to be one of the most reliable arguments, which proves the existence of the Sole Supreme Being (Graham par. 1).

It is also necessary to state that there were many famous philosophers who believed in Supreme Power and denied the impact of evolution on the Universe creation. On the other hand, it should be noted that the supporters of the opposite opinion had their own arguments, which rejected the idea of Gods existence.

Thus, William Paley is considered to be a philosopher, who belongs to the first category. The Teleological Argument created by Paley gives us an opportunity to analyze the so-called pros of the philosophical issue; while the works written by other-minded philosophers provide us with important data, which influence our evaluation of Paleys worldview.

The thesis statement

The Teleological Argument is considered to be one of the most important philosophical works, which shows proofs of Gods existence. To analyze the details of Paleys work and understand his reasoning, one is to be familiar with some opposite views.

The body

The fundamentals of Paleys worldview

Generally, it must be pointed out that Paleys teleological argument is based on logical reasoning. For instance, one can notice that the author mostly relies on comparison in his judgment. Thus, he provides us with the simplest example, comparing the history of stone origin and making a watch. At first sight, it seems that the issues have nothing in common and cannot be compared at all.

However, philosophy represents the most unusual ways various things can be analyzed and contrasted. In other words, the explanation of the philosophical difference between the two objects is following: if one stumbles on a stone, he or she will not be able to say for sure, where a stone appeared from.

It is also absurd to suggest that a stone has always been there. So, the only possible answer is that it was created by a powerful maker. Correspondingly, when speaking about a watch, one can make a conclusion that a watch is made by somebody, it is made by human being.

Thus, taking into account the above-mentioned suggestions, it becomes obvious that the Universe appeared, because it was also created by somebody. In other words, the complexity of the world implies the existence of God (or the Universe-maker) as well as the complexity of a certain mechanism also implies the existence of a mender, etc.

The major points of the philosophers argument

Of course, one is to keep in mind that Paleys reasoning is considered to be full of meaning, as it is based on certain objections. In other words, one cannot deny the existence of God, because he or she has never seen the Universe-maker. Generally, it is not important whether you know the creator, or no. The most important thing, however, is that the creator exists regardless of our knowledge about him.

On the other hand, according to another objection, one can probably say that to create a watch, many people are to be involved into the process. Thus, the construction of a mechanism requires the skills of miners, distributers, etc. So, correspondently, it seems that there should be many Gods to create the Universe. In my opinion, the second objection is not easy to dispute.

However, the philosopher says that unfortunately, the mechanism various people created cannot work perfectly; so, one can state that the same can be said about the word we live in. Still, the following counter-objection is recognized to be one of the most serious problems philosophy faces.

While speaking about Paleys existence of God, it becomes evident that the problem of evil prejudices the existence of the Universe-maker. Thus, the complexity of the mechanism is compared with extremely simple structure of a stone. But what thing can be compared with the complexity of our world?  The issue is still to be discussed.

Generally, the problem of evil was studied by many philosophers; however, I would like to highlight some important points David Hume presented. Thus, he recognized certain Circumstances Evil is created by. For instance, the author states that Pains and Pleasures are employd to excite all Creatures to Action, and make them vigilant in the great Work of Self-preservation (Hume 50). That is probably one of the key points of Humes work.

Other counter-arguments should be also discussed. One can state that the mechanism can require numerous functions, which were not originally designed. The same can be said about the Universe. However, the philosopher points out that it is not important whether one is familiar with the functions of a mechanism or no. The functions can exist, regardless of our knowledge about them.

The most important thing is the main purpose of the issue. However, there are few Parts of the Universe, which seem not to serve some purpose, and whose Removal woud not produce a visible Defect and Disorder in the Whole (Hume 52). For this reason, one can make a conclusion that the main purpose of a watch seems to be obvious, but the main purpose of our world is still unknown.

As far as a mechanism can be constructed in numerous ways, it can be regarded as the so-called chance event. The same can be said about the Universe. According to Paley, the design cannot be regarded as a chance event. The supposition seems to be absurd and has no sense.

On the other hand, one can say that Paleys argument has no sense, as human mind functions in such a way that everything can be regarded differently, and a certain order can be imposed on things irrespective of such orders presence.

Our world functions on the basis of certain principles and laws. Paley rejects the view and says that principles cannot influence the existence of the Universe. However, the philosopher seems to see no difference between descriptive law and prescriptive one.

The mechanism of the watch was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so (Paley 49). The basic idea of the response is considered to be the obviousness of the Universe for people who are not prejudiced towards or against certain views. However, the philosopher did not take into consideration the relations human mind establishes all over.

The existence of the world is considered to be an outcome of sets of rules of metallic nature. The philosopher still does not differentiate between descriptive laws and prescriptive ones.

Nobody realizes what matter is. Paley, however, states that the process of observing allows us to become familiar with the design. On the other hand, one is to keep in mind that the philosophers statement has no proof. For this reason, it is evident that the issue is still to be discussed.

The conclusion

Paleys Design Argument is based both on logical assumptions and empirical findings. However, certain counter-arguments cannot be neglected, as they are not disputed; thus, numerous issues are to be discussed. One is to keep in mind that it is still impossible to say for sure whether God exists or no.

Works Cited

Graham, Oppy. Ontological Arguments. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2011). Web. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/>.

Hume, David. Why Does God Let People Suffer? Oxford, Clarendon Press: 1976. Print.

Paley, William. The Teleological Argument, New York, American Tract Society: 1852. Print.

Introduction

One of the earliest ontological arguments, in defense of the de facto existence of God, is that of Anselm of Canterbury (St. Anselm). As of today, it is being often referred to as such that contributed rather substantially towards the theological legitimization of Christianity during the Dark Ages. Nevertheless, even though St. Anselms argument does make a certain logical sense, it is far from being considered as such that represents an undisputed truth-value. In this paper, I will aim to explain why it happened to be the case.

Main body

Discursively speaking, the mentioned argument in defense of the existence of God, can be best defined as being thoroughly deductive. Its sub-sequential phases are as follows:

1. It is thoroughly plausible to presuppose that, being the cause of all effects, God is something of which nothing can be greater.
2. Given the fact that the above-idea is thoroughly comprehensible, it will be logical to assume that God does exist in peoples minds as a thing in itself.
3. It will also be fully appropriate to assume that something that exists in peoples minds, on one hand, and as the part of the surrounding reality, on the other, is necessarily greater (superior) to what exists merely as an abstract idea.
4. If God existed merely in peoples minds, they would be able to conceive (mentally) the entity much greater than what the concept of an omnipresent deity stands for.
5. It is utterly impossible for just about anyone to imagine such an entity, which in turn implies that God does not only exist as an abstract idea but also as the surrounding realitys integral part (Malcolm 43).

Nevertheless, there are indeed a number of reasons to think of St. Anselms line of argumentation, in this respect, as being conceptually fallacious. Probably the first person, who realized that this is indeed being the case, was the theologians contemporary Gaunilo. According to him, while using St. Anselms logic, it is thoroughly possible to prove the factual existence of the heavenly island (much more beautiful than the most paradisiacal island that people have ever seen with their eyes).

The reason for this is that the idea of such an island does exist is well conceivable  quite contrary to the fact that there is not even a single objective proof that the concerned place is there to be found in reality. After all: Since a perfect island that exists in the understanding and in reality is a greater island than one that exists in the understanding alone, a perfect island must exist (Module 3 Lecture Notes 1). Gaunilos objection, however, does not appear thoroughly sound, either.

The reason for this is that it is based on the axiomatic (non-provable) assumption that whatever exists objectively is necessarily greater to what exists as merely an abstract idea. For whatever reason, both: St. Anselm and Gaunilo were tempted to think of the notions of existence and perfection, as such that organically derive out of each other. Yet, there can be no good rationale to consider the mentioned line of thinking even partially sound  something that can be easily shown, in regards to the existence of those individuals who can hardly be considered perfect.

Therefore, when it comes to exposing the fallaciousness of St. Anselms argument, one would be much better off referring to the so-called theorem of incompleteness by Kurt Godel (Gorman, Sokol, and Wayne 1053). According to it, just about any argumentative system of reasoning, based upon the set of axiomatic assumptions (such as God exists or God does not exist), can be defined as being either incomplete or self-contradictory.

The first of these definitions refer to such a system, within the methodological framework of which, a particular suggestion can be proven neither valid nor erroneous. The second definition refers to such a system, within the methodological framework of which, a particular suggestion can be proven simultaneously both: valid and erroneous. Nevertheless, as we are well aware, the realitys observable emanations can be the least referred to as be being self-contradictory. After all, it would prove rather impossible to suggest that a physical object (for example) happened to be existent and non-existent at the same time.

What it means is that, in order to be consistent with how the universe operates (and hence  more of less discursively legitimate), the ontological statements must be observable of the possibility that they are in fact incomplete. This, in fact, can be defined as the main principle of science  even though humanitys scientific knowledge is thoroughly objective (something that can be illustrated, in regards to the ongoing technological progress), it cannot possibly be referred to as being all-encompassing.

Moreover, there can be no end to the process of people learning more and more about natures actual essence, which in turn creates the objective preconditions for humanity to periodically reassess the validity of the previously legitimate scientific theories. However, the introduction of God (the ultimate reason behind all reasons), as the argumentative systems main cornerstone, automatically makes it complete. The reason for this is that the existence of God, whose ways are mysterious, makes it quite possible to prove the validity of just about any idea/suggestion  regardless of how implausible it appears to be.

The fact that, as recently back as a few centuries ago, Christians believed that the torturing and killing of infidels/heretics was a thoroughly godly deed, proves the soundness of this suggestion perfectly well. Nevertheless, as it was pointed out earlier, ones complete (religious) perceptually-cognitive worldview is necessarily self-contradictory. In other words, if one were to assume that God indeed exists, he or she would be consequently forced to assume that the surrounding reality is full of contradictions, which in turn would make it possible for effects to define their own causes. Yet, one does not have to be a philosopher to realize that this is far from being the actual case, otherwise people would be able to walk through walls and it would be possible to boil water by the mean of placing it in the deep-freezer.

What it means is there is no God  at least in the sense of an omnipotent deity. The reason for this is that the existence of such a deity would prove inconsistent with the existence of nature, as we know it. It is either God or nature. Yet, since the existence of the latter has been well-confirmed, the existence of the former remains the subject of speculations. Thus, contrary to what St. Anselm used to believe, God is in fact nothing but an abstract idea, which has very little to do with the actual ways of the world.

What has been said earlier allows us to speculate, as to what can be deemed the actual reason why, despite being logically sound, St. Anselms argument does not appear to hold much water  the fact that this argument is essentially a sophistic one. After all, while deploying St. Anselms deductive approach to confirming the existence of God, one will also be able to prove that, after having left the barrel of a gun, a bullet never ceases being suspended in the year, which in turn prevents it from being able to reach its target.

The reason for this is that, in theory, the distance between the gun and the target can be divided into an indefinite number of stretches, which means that it will take this bullet an indefinite amount of time, in order to go through each of these stretches, before reaching the target. Apparently, it never occurred to St. Anselm that it does not make much of a sense, whatsoever, considering ones mental projections of some abstract ideas, as such that are being necessarily reflective of the surrounding realitys manifestations, in the first place  something that todays psychiatrists are being well aware of.

Conclusion

I believe that the deployed line of reasoning, in defense of the suggestion that St. Anselms argument is irredeemably fallacious, correlates with the papers initial thesis perfectly well. Apparently, there is indeed very little reason to believe in Gods existence, simply because people are intuitively inclined to think that there must have been some intelligent/omnipotent cause behind everything. After all, as it was shown earlier, if there was indeed such a cause, the universe would not be functioning in the way it does. What it means is that ones belief in God is nothing but the indication that the concerned person is cognitively infantile  pure and simple.

Works Cited

Gorman, David, Sokol, Brian and David Wayne. Godels Theorem. PMLA 110.5 (1995): 1053-1056. Print.

Malcolm, Norman. Anselms Ontological Arguments. The Philosophical Review 69.1 (1960): 41-62. Print.

Module 3 Lecture Notes. Print.

It is worth noting that, guided by the scientific methods of cognition, Rene Descartes came to a skeptical but boundless trust in human mind. He argued that the path to philosophy lied precisely in doubt in connection with the need to question both feelings and thoughts. In this case, the actual fact of doubt will be unquestionable (Ariew, 2014). The thinker considered this approach to philosophy more reliable than mathematical intuition. Assuming that the presence of thinking presupposed the existence of spirit, Descartes had built his ontological approach based on this relationship. One of the branches of his ontological thought was the discussion of the existence of God. The philosopher searched for an explanation for this phenomenon and tried to argue for the existence of the Supreme Being. The purpose of this paper is review and analyze the arguments Rene Descartes provided to evidence the existence of God.

Descartes Reasoning

Trying to find an explanation for the existence of God, Descartes came to an idea of an innate nature of knowledge. Despite the fact that many researchers emphasize the fallacy of such reasoning, this understanding was not absurd due to the fact that people, as a rule, rely on the knowledge of previous generations and do not question the truthfulness of admonitions or beliefs (Ariew, 2014). However, the philosopher sought for a comprehensive explanation, looking for the proof of the authenticity of human knowledge about the external world.

Initially, Descartes tried to find arguments proving the existence of God explaining it by the fact that God was an essential intermediary element between humans and nature. Moreover, God acted as a guarantor of the existence of the world. In this connection, Descartes assumed that God was the source of truth and was opposed to lies and deceit (Croft, 2013). Therefore, the first proof of the existence of the Supreme Being Descartes considered the inadmissibility of lies. The next argument was that it was God solely who was able to instill in peoples souls an understanding of what was a supremely perfect being. In addition, another evidence was the concept of rationalism. Respectively, according to Rene Descartes, no thinking or rational person could assert that there was no God (Hatfield, 2014). Notably, many successive thinkers, as well as researchers, indicated that the latter argument was of medieval scholastic character.

Another Argument

It is worth noting that all the three arguments described above can be considered subjective and questionable, and they are not logical enough because of the lack of evidence to sustain such reasoning. In this regard, Rene Descartes introduced another justification in support of his position. He derived this argument from his theory of doubt. According to the thinker, the essence of doubt (as the basis of thinking) confirmed the intuitive existence of supremely perfect being; respectively, God existed beyond all doubt (Croft, 2013). Thus, introducing this fourth argument, Descartes summed up all the previous principles. Referring to the facts that God was the guarantor of reliability and intuition generated the truth, God existed in connection with the allusion to the intuitive discretion of the human mind.

Counterargument

Nevertheless, this approach to ontology revealed another perspective, which proved the dependence of Gods existence on the human mind and its actions. It is important to emphasize that following this rationalization, the philosopher came to the principle of deism. Deism states that the existence of God cannot change the actual composition of the past and cannot affect the laws of nature that were also determined by God (Jaspers, 2013). In this context, God is the creator who has endowed the world with the essence, though the Supreme Being is unable to influence the further development of nature. God preserves nature and the truth of knowledge and ensures the inviolability of natural laws.

Nevertheless, in parallel with his argument, Descartes called into question the fact whether God created the world. The structure of the physical world presupposes the possibility of the emergence of nature without the initiative and power of God. It is essential to emphasize that Rene Descartes noted the extensiveness and space that nature occupied, in which there were no voids, and only material objects had such a characteristic according to his philosophy and worldview (Williams, 2014). Therefore, the presence of physical structure and mathematical properties of the world indicated that God did not create the nature.

Core of Reasoning

It should be noted that in his philosophy, Descartes stressed that he did not have a criterion for determining whether he was conscious or in a state of a dream. Relying on this leitmotif, the only statement, which could be made, was that doubting the reality of the existence of the external world was reasonable. Descartes was convinced that the idea of God as a perfect being was a natural conclusion of human thinking (Dicker, 2013). The experience acquired by a person has proved the imperfection and limitations of people and their mind; however, this idea was inherent in people due to the fact that the notion was embedded in them from outside. Descartes came to an understanding that the idea of humans imperfection was instilled by God solely as the creator who designed humankind and put into their minds the notion of God as a perfect being (Dicker, 2013). In turn, this approach implied the existence of an external world as an object of human cognition. God could not deceive people, and the created world had to follow to the immutable laws that the human mind needed to comprehend. Thus, God served as a pledge of understanding the world and the objectivity of knowledge, and the recognition of the Supreme Being would allow people to attain confidence in human mind.

Conclusion

Therefore, it can be concluded that Rene Descartes provided several arguments to prove the existence of God. Firstly, he emphasized that God was a perfect being while people were imperfect and this idea suggested that it should be perfect to exist rather than the reverse. This argument was ontological in character. The second reasoning lied within the distinction between two types of reality the finite and infinite one. According to this concept, objects or things that have concrete or formal nature belong to finite reality. For instance, a stone has formal reality; therefore, it is finite. In the same manner, the idea of Supreme Being is objective as well as its infinite formal substantiality. The third argument rooted from logical principles. Rene Descartes considered that it was impossible that an idea could emerge out of nowhere and this notion had such attributes as cause and effect. Therefore, due to the fact that people had a concept of the Supreme Being, it evidenced the existence of God.

References

Ariew, R. (2014). Descartes and the first Cartesians. London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Croft, N. (2013). The Descartes legacy. London, UK: Entangled Publishing.

Dicker, G. (2013). Descartes. New York, NY: OUP USA.

Hatfield, G. (2014). The Routledge guidebook to Descartes meditations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jaspers, K. (2013). Leonardo, Descartes, Max Weber. New York, NY: Routledge.

Williams, B. (2014). Descartes. New York, NY: Routledge.

According to Heidegger (2006, p. 48), the term ontology has attracted various definitions from various scholars. However, all these definition share the fact that ontology basically means existence or state of being or a reality. Ontology as a name was developed from a Greek word onto which means being or that which is.

Ontology is a branch of metaphysics that deals with issues about the existence of entities, and how these entities may possibly be grouped based on their similarities and differences and on their hierarchy. Ontology has been very popular in philosophy. It helps in defining existence of various beings in the world.

Philosophers have been trying to explain the existence of various beings and how they are related to each other in the world. It is interesting to understand the existence of various being and the hierarchical relationship with other beings. It is through ontology that this can be brought to a clear focus for one to understand this existence and the relationships they have.

Ontology can be classified into a number of ways using various criteria such as field of application or degree of abstraction (Hacking 2004, p. 84). This scholar emphasizes that the criteria used in this classification may vary depending on the approach one gives to this analysis or what one seeks to obtain from the process.

Plato is one of the philosophers who have been lauded to have helped in the development of ontology. Ontology can be classified as upper ontology, domain ontology, interface ontology and process ontology. Each class has specific states of being as described below.

Upper ontology involves the concepts which support the development of a given ontology. Domain ontology involves concepts which are relevant to a particular area of interest such as science, computer languages, and information technology among others. Interface ontology is always used when dealing with a scenario where two disciples are involved.

Process ontology on the other hand involves the inputs, outputs, the constraints, information among other factors in a business process. These classifications are important in helping understand ontology and how it is relevant in analyzing various states of being.

Plato was concerned of with making the society understand reality from illusion. According to Plato, sometimes an illusion can be so real that it may be considered a reality (Hacking 2004, p. 76). Using ontology, Plato was interested in bringing forth ways through which illusions could be distinguished from realities. This is because the state o mind can be very deceptive at times. The mind can transform an illusion into what appears to be a reality, especially if the involved party has an obsession over the issue.

The mind is an engine that knows how to create a leveled ground when there is a dire need for it. However, Plato insisted that realities are eternal and cannot change, while illusions can easily be changed based on what is desired because they are fake. Aristotle further enhanced ontology by bringing four ontological dimensions that is slightly different from what his teacher Plato, had given before.

The first category is based on ways or categories in which a being is addressed. The second category is the truthfulness or falsity of a being or state such as counterfeit gold. The third category is the possibility of a state existing independently or by chance. The last category is the potency of the state or its presence.

List of References

Hacking, I 2004, Historical ontology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Heidegger, M 2006, Ontology: The hermeneutics of facticity, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

The epistemology of Thomas Hobbes is based on the sociology of knowledge, understanding the contexts of constructed reality and social contracts and boundaries which define his argument. However, examining the text, it can be argued that Hobbes was more of an intuitionist than a nominalist, affirming the existence of abstract concepts. Other literature suggests Hobbes was a nominalist, reducing the universal concept to definitions and terms which also depended on human will and perceptions. Nevertheless, Hobbes seems to distinguish his writings on the Law of Nature from realistic conditions, with the philosophy based on maxims of the knowledge of human nature and behavior that apply moral precepts on science as the knowledge of causes.

In his article, Weber states the nature of the relationship of scientific work and its presuppositions varies widely according to their structure (Gerth and Mills 9). He goes on to argue that although certain sciences collect technical data on laws of cosmic events, it does inherently prove the existence of meaning or sense of such as world. Hobbes does not create an exact science around his laws of nature argument but builds a logical thesis based on the social and internal conditions of humans that present an explanation of particular forces, laws, or influences. However, his epistemology seeks to develop the ontology of the state of nature-based complex forms of social contracts and behaviors in mankind reduced to computational reasoning. Hobbes supported in his argument for the implementation of computational mechanisms for defining laws of nature and mental processes.

Hobbes presentation of natural law is inherently considered positivistic as his work is often viewed as a forerunner to legal positivism. From a legal perspective, Hobbes argues that the skill of recognizing social rules as the law of nature is directly correlated to institutional law. Natural law creates reason and justification to build a realistic system of positive law, establishing an artificial and effective legal order. Therefore, based on this argument, it can be suggested that Hobbes was a positivist, as his epistemology sought to make sense of the social contexts and sciences, applying elements of rationalism through intuitionist perspectives as well as the structure of the scientific method to study social life.

Positivism supports that true knowledge is achieved through sense perception and logical deduction that determine patterns and categories. Hobbes builds his description of the state of nature-based on moral precepts, And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it (Hobbes 2). In Leviathan, Hobbes maintained an approach of establishing a philosophical logical basis to social psychology, providing secular explanations to the political state and interactions of people with the government and each other. The human motivations were explained through mechanistic principles in a metaphysical thought experiment of his Social Contract Theory.

Works Cited

Gerth, Hans, and C. Wright Mills, editors. Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press, 1946.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Penguin Books, 2017.

The existence of God since time memorial has been as subject of debate with different philosophers coming up with different expressions to show that God really exists. The ontological argument primarily centers on explaining the real nature of Gods existence. Majority of these arguments are just analytic because most philosophers have based their arguments on their individual perceptions of the world.

For example, Descartes notion of existence of a perfectly supreme being is questionable because, unless one proves that the reality of the Supreme Being is coherent, then the argument is void. It is important to note here that, it is very hard for individuals to evaluate the concept of perfectionism because the idea is relative depending on the conditions at hand.

In realty most ontological arguments are mere descriptions of thoughts or individual perceptions, hence they never directly give insights on the existence of perfect beings. In addition, one main prerequisite of ontological arguments is the selectivity of words as the main mechanism of explaining or proving concepts, depending on the context under which individuals apply them.

Although this is the case, it is important to note that, although ontological arguments use specific vocabulary, the property does mean that all ontological arguments are subject to critical analysis and inquiry. This is because majority of ontological arguments use such vocabularies to prove a point, which in most cases causes a dilemma on the validness of the presented argument.

Consider Anselms argument on the existence of God. His definition of God as the greatest conception that the human mind can have implies that, God above all creatures is the most perfect being that exists. Regardless of the title one may accord such a being of great perfection, one main thing is for the arguments premises to prove that in realty such a being exists.

Anselms argument that God is the mightiest being elucidates many questions on the real existence of the perceived God. This is because critical analysis of the question clearly shows that, it is almost impracticable to ascertain that God never exists in reality. This is because from his statement it is not wrong for one to argue that, God is omnipotent, hence can bring into existence anything that humans perceive.

Although this may be the interpretation of the mightiest nature of God, further inquiry on the existence of some things makes it hard to believe it. For instance, can God create a triangular circle? In this like a scenario, logic takes center stage, hence putting into test the ability of God to go against the rules under which philosophy bases logic.

This therefore brings the argument that, God has the ability to do only what others can do, but has no power to break the rules of logic. However because it is hard to ascertain the real qualities of God, one thing remains clear is; God has the power of doing everything (Brown p.1).

On the other hand, the use of the phrase the most possible being implies that, no matter the circumstances or prevailing conditions, something that is possible has some aspect of real existence, hence can never cease to have the existence property. This fact therefore supports the argument, hence acting as a proof that in reality God exists.

Majority of existential claims take little consideration of the conceptual nature of things, meaning that proof forms their main mode of ascertaining concepts. In addition, in this like a case, senses take precedence, hence formulation of appropriate mechanisms of proving the same by use of empirical methods.

Although this mechanism can work in both positive and negative existential claims, sometimes it is possible to prove negative existential propositions by applying a reflective mechanism that one should base on the content on ideas at hand. In this regard, the ontological argument is an exception too because its premises try to ascertain the reality of existence.

One cannot deny that to some extent Anselm proves that for real God exist, hence the whole idea is not a human perception. However, one thing is still unclear; there is no clarity in his wrapping up of the idea that, God exists in reality and that only fools can deviate from such an idea. The order of Anselms ideas has some qualities of syllogism; hence, some rational flow of arguments, but it is necessary also note that, his arguments lack a firm base of expression.

This is because his ideas on existence of God are cyclical in nature and to some extent seem to originate from some religious background. The derivation of proof from a godly background, to some extent makes his proof void of some aspects of actuality philosophically.

In conclusion, due to the biases presented in Anselms arguments, there is a likelihood that God for real does not exist in reality; Gods existence being a mere conception of the human mind. However, basing his argument on faith, then in God exists not only in human perceptions, but also in reality.

Works Cited

Brown, Curtis. Arguments for the existence of God: Anselm Ontological argument. 2001. Web.

Deleuzes work Pleats of Matter investigates the ontology of folds, pleats, bends and their application for enveloping, distortion and collapsing. This work depicts the overflow of trajectories and clash of the process, where their layers are vaguely presented or revealed in the deformed state (Deleuze 17). Here the shape and form are secondary products of lines bending into one another, where folds are developed and created to a different extent where one form can be quickly transformed into another form. As the fold is capable of infinite divisions, there should be the power that can produce the limits for infinity. This power can be presented as the compressive force of the university contributing to the return of all pleats of the matter to the surrounded area. The likening to such natural phenomena as the maelstrom or the see foam, folds are subjected to the vertical principle where one fold triggers another.

The principle of constant fluidity is also achieved through the possibility of folds to create other folded parts endlessly. Deleuze also notes that two displays of the fold are explained and determined by the surrounding actors and their pressure that identify their hardness (19). Therefore, the author renders Leibnizs idea that each material has its absolute hardness which is revealed through the number of folds, which, in their turn, are not separated into the parts but divided into smaller parts. In this way, the pleats of the matter can be connected with alive organisms where the development of a living being is an infinite division of folds or pleating. Despite the process of pleating and separating, each level of the organic system forms a cohesion (Deleuze 18). Hence, the first layer of folds, which is defined by Deleuze by the folds in the soul, is always self-motivated whereas the upper level is formed under the influence of the external forces of compression. Therefore, the internal forces are always directional where the external folds are retained by friction.

Analyzing Kipniss work through the prism of the nature of beings, there is an idea that the New Architecture is based on the withdrawal of the old ones. However, there is an opinion that the new architectural techniques are based on the combination of all forms which have been proclaimed as the new methods of building strategies. To prove either of these, Kipnis explains the nature of forms and tries to differentiate between the novelty of the form and the constellation of collage (100). At this point, the leading role belongs to the force of heterogeneity, which cannot be applied to the form of collage. Heterogeneity imparts the collage with the possibility of exhaustion, which is the sign of usage of the old forms.

Another force directed at protesting the old forms is an inscription of spatial models, as a means of rapture and discontinuity. The space characteristics also contradict the existence of forms and the possibility of reaching the equilibrium between the infinite space and fixed limits of finite space. The pointing and projecting serve for the production of new forms and spaces. The projecting involves the principle of distortion contributing to the formation of spatial residues, as the main outcome of heterogeneity of forms.

On whole, both architects consider the Baroques nature of forms through different explanations of forces affecting them. In particular, Deleuze puts an emphasis on the analysis of folds and their internal and external representation whereas Kipnis is more focused on the presentation of spatial residues as the result of form distortion acquiring the function of deformation and information.

Works Cited

Deleuze, Gillez. Pleats of Matter. The Fold  Leibniz and the Baroque. US: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006.

Kipnis, Jeffrey. Towards A New Architecture. 2010. Web.

There are many theories that try to prove the existence of God. Ontological argument stipulates that God exists because atheists contradict themselves in how they perceive the existence of God. Therefore, according to the argument, the existence of these contradictions gives a confirmation that God exists.

Although many philosophers support the ontological argument, some philosophers have made serious criticisms on the existence of God. According to Anselm, since God is a supreme being who is believed to be above all creatures, it implies that any argument that concerns his existence requires a careful scrutiny from both atheists and non-atheists (Rauhut 176).

While Anselm and Wager are major proponents of the ontological argument, Hume and Kant are some of the opponents of the ontological argument. Therefore, this essay analyzes the objections of Hume and Kant and assesses their differences with the objections presented by Pascals argument.

According to Hume, there is a clear impression of the existence of animals such as dogs and cats as one can derive the concepts from practical impressions. He argues that, since there are no clear impressions on the existence of God, his existence can only be in our minds.

Thus, Hume objects the ontological argument by saying that God only exists in our minds as blurry idea, which depicts God as the greatest being. In his assertion, David Hume concludes that any existence claim seem to require matters of fact and can never be a mere analytic judgments (Rauhut 179). Hence, it is not plausible for one to use analytic judgments in proving the existence of God.

Comparatively, critics of Wager cite beliefs as the major shortcoming of the ontological argument. They argue that one cannot use beliefs to prove the existence of God. Moreover, in their argument they state that beliefs are not usually under the voluntary control of an individual, and thus lead to the complexity of many gods worshipped by many religions.

Another philosopher, Kant notes that real existence is greater and more convincing than imaginative existence. Kant argues that if something exists in reality, it cannot be greater than the object that exists in understanding (Rauhut 180). Hence, he believes that for one to prove the existence of an object, it should be real.

Thus, Kant objects the ontological argument because the argument is based on imaginative existence of God, which does not provide the reality concerning his existence. In comparison, critics of Wagers arguments highlight that Wager uses beliefs and faith to prove that God exists. The critics claim that the use of belief is confusing because people are unable to control their beliefs, which consequently subjects them to many gods.

Ontological argument is a controversial argument that supports the existence of God. The argument states that, since scholars and philosophers who oppose the concept regarding the existence of God contradict themselves, they prove that God exists. According to Hume and Kant, something must be real and visible for it to exist. For instance, Hume and Kant use visible and tangible objects in their arguments.

Furthermore, Hume and Kant argue that the ontological argument is not practical because it only presents God as a supreme being who is invisible and only exist in ones mind. Moreover, critics of Wagers argument noted that ontological argument has its basis on beliefs. According to the critics, beliefs are not under ones control, and thus cannot be used to prove that God really exists.

Works Cited

Rauhut, Nils. Ultimate Questions: Thinking about Philosophy. New York: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.