To begin, Anselm makes the argument that God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.” He first supposes that a person’s definition of God clearly exists in their understanding as an all knowing omnipotent God. He assumes that whether you believe in a God or not, we all have an idea of God in our minds. Anselm begins to reflect on the idea that when one thinks of God, he is something that is greater. Often when people think of God we don’t think of something lowly. Throughout many cultures and even in pagan religions their God or God’s were held to be powerful and great. From this mental understanding of what God is, Anselm adds, that if God is “that than which nothing can be greater thought” then he has to be able to exist outside …show more content…
In opposition to this argument, Gaunilo refuted Anselm by saying that he could use the same argument to prove his idea of a perfect “lost island.” Gaunilo thought that Anselm’s argument was wrong and argued on behalf of the fool. He thought that we can substitute God for many other things. He showed that he could use Anselm’s same argument to prove his idea of a perfect island. The greatest imaginable island exists in our mind that has good weather, palm trees, waterfalls, and whatever you think a perfect island would have. Following the steps of Anselm’s argument he states that it must exist in our understanding, but in reality as well. In this case, you can think of a perfect island and somewhere out there, there may be the perfect island that you can think of. Like this example of the island, many other things can be substituted just as the island was. We can think of such things as the greatest conceivable pizza or greatest conceivable horse. The point that Gaunilo was trying to make is that we can substitute God with other thing’s that do not exist and because of this we can come up with ridiculous …show more content…
An island can be conceived differently by numerous people or yourself. Another problem that arises with this is that more and more can be added to ones idea of a perfect island. God is of a different category that of an island. Describing an island is illogical because God is the perfect being outside of time and creation. The description of a God is a totally different category. Different perfections could be added to the island. The point Anselm was making is that it is ridiculous to apply any other substitutes to compare to God. Things that can be conceived in this way pertain only for God. This is a view that atheists have trouble comprehending. They do not understand what God is therefore they don’t even have a starting point. If they did conceive a basic understanding then they would understand that He is which nothing greater can be found.I believe that Anselm was not trying to directly prove that God exists through this argument. I think that it was more of a reflection and prayer. From the beginning of the Proslogion he continuously praise and prays to God to show him understanding “but I long to understand your truth in some way” and again where he states “unless I believe, I shall not understand.” It is clear here that Anselm in contemplating God in
Anselm’s argument can be summarized as, “1. God does not exist. (assumption) 2. By “God,” I mean that, than which no greater can be conceived (NGC). 3. So NGC does not exist. (from 1 and 2) 4. So NGC has being only in my understanding, not also in reality. (from 2 and 3) 5. If NGC were to exist in reality, as well as in my understanding, it would be greater. (from the meaning of “greater”) 6. But then, NGC is not NGC. (from 4 and 5) 7. So, NGC cannot exist only in my understanding. (from 6) 8. So NGC must exist also in reality. (from 5 and 7) 9. So God exists. (from 2 and 8) 10. So God does not exist and God exists. (from 1 to 9) 11. So Premise 1 cannot be true. (by 1 through 10 and the principle of reduction ad absurdum) 12. So God exists. (from 11)” (262). This quote demonstrates how Anselms ontological proof is “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” in understanding and reality by stating that a contradiction would be made if God didn’t exist in both (262). Aquinas cosmological proof stated that the existence of God could be confirmed in five ways, The Argument- “from Change”, “Efficient Causality”,
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
Anselm began with his definition of God. That God is “that then which nothing greater can be conceived” (Id quo nihil mauis potest), meaning that it is impossible for there to be a more perfect being. This leads to the first two premises. Firstly, “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” and secondly, “Something that exists in reality (in re) is bound to be greater than something that exists in the imagination (in intellectu). This leads to the conclusion, that as God is “the greatest conceivable thing”…it is only logical that God exists “both in reality and thought”. Anselm’s essential claim was that existence was a “predicate of God” which means a quality of God’s nature. As God is the “greatest conceivable thing”, He must be great in possible way which includes existing.
In the Proslogion, Anselm tries to prove the existence of God and his powers through the ontological argument. This argument redirects the argument of God’s existence from science and observation to logic, where Anselm explains that there has to be a being that nothing greater can be thought of, and that is God. One of Anselm’s main topics of contention is God’s omnipotence and whether He is actually infinite. In the Proslogion, Anselm talks about God’s omnipotence and if it can be disavowed because of self-contradictory statements, how God’s non-action gives him more possibility and power, and how being all-powerful can lead to God being both merciful and yet not feel the pains of sinners.
Timothy Keller stated, “My friends, when God’s presence comes into your life full of selfishness with his love, full of power with your anxiety, there’s going to be a clash.” The book The Reason for God: Belief in an age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller is a book that should be read by believers in God, and unbelievers as well. This book helps all people knock down the barrier between themselves and God in order to grow a relationship with Him. Timothy Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church that he started in 1989, and is also Chairman of Redeemer City to City. He is prepared with the tools to help people strengthen their belief in God, as well as open their eyes to the Christian God.
Anselm was a stable believer in God, so he wanted to use logic and reason to confirm his forceful faith and clarify God’s existence. Anselm’s argument was given in chapter two of Proslogion. Its main focus was the meaning of God. Furthermore he claims that everyone, whether they trust in God or not agrees alongside this definition. Anselm approves there is a difference amid understanding that God exists and understanding him to be a concept. To clarify this extra, he gives the analogy of a painter. He states that, in advance a gifted painter makes a masterpiece; he can discern it visibly in his mind even nevertheless he knows it doesn’t exist. He comprehends it as an idea. Though, after the painting has been finished and can be perceived by the man in reality, the painter comprehends the believed of the painting and its existence. The upcoming period is the locale that an advocate of God who approves alongside Anselm’s argument will be at.
There are often many mixed views when discussing God’s existence. In Anselm’s works “The Proslogion” and “Anselm’s Reply to Gaunilo” and Gaunilo’s work the “Reply on Behalf of the Fool”, both of their philosophies on the matter are imparted. Anselm’s logic regarding God is correct as he sustains his argument even when it confronted with criticisms and it is comprehensible.
When Anselm attempts to prove the existence of God ontologically, he establishes a clear distinction between existence in understanding and reality. For something to exist in understanding, there must be a clearly defined concept for said object, however for it to exist in reality it must exist and understanding and also possess the quality of existence. Therefore, whenever one describes an object, they assume it exists and then continue to describe its attributes. However, if one assumes existence itself is a quality, it makes the presupposed existence of the described object either redundant or contradictory, depending on whether the object possesses the quality of existence. For instance, when one says "dragons do not exist" one assumes that dragons exists by mentioning them in conversation but then continue to disprove their existence. This sounds contradictory, however as far as we are aware, "dragons do not exist is a true
Another way that St. Anselm's argument differs from other arguments is that it requires that you look at a definition of the concept of God. As Sober says, the definition of an object does not, in itself, prove its existence. Some examples he gives are unicorns and golden...
The idea of God is something that would not just come natural. It is not living ordinarily and just thinking of God. The idea of God as a whole must be created by God. If humans are finite, and God is infinite, how could one possible have the thought of such an infinite being.
In the words of Anselm, "Therefore, Lord, not only are You that than which nothing greater can be conceived but you are also something greater than can be conceived. Indeed, since it is possible to be conceived to be something of this kind, if you are not this very thing, something can be conceived greater than You, which cannot be done. " Anselm suggested a proof for God's existence, however, for God to be God there must be more to Him than that He simply 'exists'.
The concept of God can be a difficult one to grasp especially in today's world - a world in which anyone that believes in God is trying to define exactly what God is. To even attempt to grasp such a concept, one must first recognize his own beliefs in respect to the following questions: Is God our creator? Is God omnipotent (all-powerful) or omniscient (all-knowing) or both? Does God care? Is God with us? Does God interfere with life on earth? These questions should be asked and carefully answered if one should truly wish to identify his specific beliefs in God's existence and persistence.
...comprehend or imagine Him. Because of this, God cannot be ‘thought’, he can merely be defined as infinite. Since we cannot comprehend God in our thought, he no longer exists in our minds as an entity, but merely as a definition. Thus, since he no longer exists in our minds, there is no obligation to understand that he must exist in reality; an implication made in Anselm’s argument.
Anselm’s argument for the existence of God is quite simple. He first proclaims that humans can grasp in their mind “something than which nothing greater can be thought” (Anselm 7). This “something” is an all-perfect God. Then, Anselm states that, if the all-perfect God existed only in thought, then something greater than the the all-perfect God can be conceived, namely, an all-perfect God that exists in reality. And
My personal vision of God is a spirit made up of power, wisdom, and goodness that can’t be fully understood by any amount of writing or philosophical studies. I think God’s ultimate concern is to teach us to help one another to serve our fellow neighbor. In today’s society we have tried to better each other by using different tactics, some good, and others bad. We need to reevaluate our actions on how to enhance our society, starting with eliminating the bad tactics we use. To do this, we should revise the bible and how we perceive the two different Testaments, based on moral values then and now. By doing this, we will enhance our definition and understanding of morality.