Ryle Versus Descartes

Abstract

The key notion of most religions is the idea of a God, an all-powerfull, benevolent and providential being, who created the universe and all therein. Questions connected with the existence of God maybe the most important that we can ask and try to answer. If God exists, then it is of the utmost importance that we come to know that fact and as much as possible about God and his plan. If God exists, the world is not accidental, a product of mere chance and necessity, but a home that has been designed for rational and sentient beings. If there is a God, we ought to do everything possible to discover this fact, including using our reason in the discovery itself or as a means to test the validity of claims of such a discovery. Can the existence of God be demonstrated or made probable by argument? The debate or the argument between those who believe that reason can demonstrate that God exists and those who do not has continued to puzzle and fascinate philosophers ever since first set forth by St.Anselm. The Ontological Argument is important for two reasons: it claims to be an a priori proof for the existence of God and it is the primary locus of such philosophical problems as whether existence is a predicate or property. In this context, this paper,is interested in examining the ontological argument deeply in both Rene Descartes, who considered the ontological argument as valid, and Gilbert Ryle, who rejected the argument as invalid.