It is important to show why the topic you are discussing is important, especially if there are other topics that could be studied in place of the one you are discussing. In this case, the discussion is on Saint Anselm and his Ontological Argument. There have been other arguments made before Saint Anselm on God's existence, and the first paragraph will show why it is important to study this particular argument. Then the argument itself is given and discussed. And just like most arguments in the field of philosophy, the Ontological Argument has an objection. This too is given and discussed.
* * * * *
Saint Anselm takes a different approach than St. Thomas Aquinas and William Paley when trying to prove that God exists. In St. Aquinas' Cosmological Argument and Paley's Teleogical Argument, the premises were a posteriori, meaning they could only be accepted as true after ("post") experience. You must have experienced or dealt with motion before to accept Aquinas' argument, and you must know what a watch and rock look like to accept Paley's argument. Just understanding the concept of motion, a watch, and a rock is not sufficient to accept the arguments. However, St. Anselm's argument does not require that you experience things. It only requires a priori beliefs, meaning if you understand a proposition then you can believe it is true. Just as the term suggests, a priori propositions "are knowable prior to, or independently of, experience" (82).
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...
... middle of paper ...
...selm replies saying that Gaunilo is wrong because by definition an island is a finite object that cannot contain infinite properties. But the definition of God is a being that can contain infinite properties.
Many philosophers, including Elliott Sober, have criticized Anselm for his reply to Gaunilo, as well as Gaunilo's attempt to show the Ontological Argument is not deductively valid. Gaunilo says that there must be something wrong with the argument, but he does not point out where the mistake is. It is necessary to do so because Anselm's argument does look valid. Indeed, Anselm says that the Ontological Argument is deductively valid because of the difference between God and an island. "This seems implausible, since deductive validity doesn't depend on an argument's subject matter, only on its form, and the two arguments have the same logical form" (87).
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...
One of these was brought up by Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo. Gaunilo used Anselm’s proof in regards to an island, if an island was conceived that was more excellent than any other island then the island would still be more excellent in reality; therefore, the island must exist (263). Following Anselm’s proof, Gaunilo came to this conclusion and believed it was absurd because using this logic actual islands would be better than the island that is supposed to be most excellent in reality. Aquinas was considered to have a remarkable system in which he thought. Although he was thought to have intelligence that had not been seen since Aristotle’s time period, atheist, agnostics, and theologians of orthodox continued to doubt his proofs
Perhaps the ‘Perfect Island’ objection is more intuitive and easily digested, and thus serves as a stronger argument for the layman. But Kant’s objection is important In that it highlights the distinctions between fictitious objects labelled as ‘in existence’ and physical objects in realty. However, I would argue that both objections give us good reasons to reject the entirety of Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God.
...nd since from what we know we can imagine things, the fact that we can imagine an infinite, transcendent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God is proof that He exists, since what can me thought of is real and can be known.” (ch. 2) Saint Thomas Aquinas' rebutting reply would be that it is simply not so, not everything can be known to mortal man and not all that is real is directly evident to us as mankind.
Anselm’s classical ontological argument is criticized precisely for its attempt to define God into existence. The argument is deductive and its form known as reduction ad absurdum. “That is, it begins with a supposition S (suppose that the greatest conceivable being exist in the mind alone) that is contradictory to what one desires to prove” (Pojman 41). In other words, the argument attempts to show a contradiction or absurdity in the opposite view in order to claim his own view is correct.
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.
In this paper, I will examine the ontological argument of Anselm for the existence of God. Anselm defines God as “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought,” which means, at least for Anselm, that God must exist because he is the greatest being that can be conceived. Furthermore, he argues that all people, whether or not they believe in the existence of God, at least understand his definition, including the fool who denies that God exist. Anselm, in addition to that, describes two main differences between understanding the definition of God, and understanding God to exist.
In the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely illogical in itself, is the center of Anselm's illogical argument, and something that I will try to explain. First, we must define "that which we can conceive of nothing." What can this possibly mean? It seems that this is the limit of what we can conceive. What this is, I cannot say because it is inconceivable. Anselm claims that what is beyond this is God. He is telling us that God is the highest possible being. This is the sum of his argument. What I want to know is how we can conceive the existence of something that is beyond all that is conceivable. While there are obvious problems with his logic, Anselm firmly believes that God is the greatest of all beings.
...n the existence of God does not mean you doubt that He really does exist. If you disagree with his method, like Gaunilo, you simply want more accurate evidence to support the idea. God, like your island or toy, is not just there because you wished it to be or because it would be better and more perfect if these things did exist. If you agree with his method, you understand that you do not always have to touch everything you conceive of in your mind. Things in life exist for a reason. The question remains: whose reason are you going to believe?
Saint Aquinas defines the existence of God with the upmost clarity. Saint Anselm and William Paley attempt to tackle the existence of God but are weighed down by weaknesses within their argument. Even with Saint Anselm being a Christian theologian, he does not incorporate his personal religious beliefs into his argument. St. Anselm relies purely on logic and ontology to define what he constitutes as God, defined as a being in which nothing greater can be thought. This definition is general enough to be consistent with what various individuals establish as their “God.” Anselm uses Tinkerbell as an example to defend his thought to reality premise. Tinkerbell relies on the faith from children to believe in her existence for her to exist. For Anselm, if something is thought then in some realm, it must exist. However, St. Anselm does not address crucial arguments that deteriorate his position. The translation from thought into reality is not clear. A sole idea constructed by the mind does not establish its place in reality. Dragons are thought and even read to a child during their adolesc...
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.
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.
One of the first things that must be said, is that God does not exist. At least, he does not exist as a physical thing. God is not something among all the other things in this world, like a tree, building, or rock. God does not exist in that sense. Instead, according to St. Thomas, God is existence.
St. Anselm of Canterbury defined God as “that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought” (Bailey, 2002). The problem with this definition is that the term ‘greater’ is surely up for interpretation. The term ‘greater’ requires a comparison between itself and one or more things, which could pose a problem for Anselm’s argument; however Professor Thorp states that the only difference between these two things is that one exists in the mind, while the other exists in the mind and in reality. If we understand that a God that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than one that merely exists in the mind then we must understand that God exists. We need to examine this, however, much more closely to discover the problem with this statement; and I will do so using an example given to us by Professor Thorp.
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