The Ontological Argument: A Comparative Look at the Versions of Anselm and Gharawi Isfahani
The Ontological Argument: A Comparative Look at the Versions of Anselm and Gharawi Isfahani

Summary/Abstract: There is a hierarchy of arguments for the existence of God. Meaning, they possess many degrees based upon the number of premises and axioms they rest upon. Based upon this general rule, we can divide the existing arguments for the existence of God into three basic categories, starting from the kind of arguments that need the most premises and axioms. In this paper we wish to discuss the ontological argument for the existence of God. In the ontological argument we start from a concept in the mind. In other words, there is no need to accept that there is something real outside the mind. We simply state there is a specific idea in the mind. The beauty of the argument does not only rest upon the fact that there is no need to accept reality, existence or a specific being for the argument to be sound. It seems that the reason why the ontological argument is so named is the use of the term 'existence'. We will examine the history of this argument in Western and Muslim circles and compare them with one another. We also wish to defend this argument from the criticisms that have been made against it. Anselm was the first thinker in the West to present the ontological argument as far as history tells us. Sheikh Gharawi Isfahani has presented one version for the ontological argument that is worthy of careful consideration. In this paper we mainly wish to examine the versions of these two thinkers.

• Details
• Contents