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 explanation of this argument for the existence of God, Anselm states that God is the greatest being that can be thought and nothing else can be conceived as a greater being than God. For example, when one grasp the idea of God, one thinks of that being as one who has the best properties that could exist in the world such as wisdom, power, knowledge and even the unique essence of existence, and we amplify each attribute to its limits, and as a result we have God. If we can still think of something greater than that, then we have failed to really think of something that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. This brief explanation of the argument is explained in detail in the following paragraphs.
In the ontological argument, Anselm assumes that the fool understands the concept of God as ‘that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-though,’ even when the fool denies that God exists. Anselm reasons here are that if the fool has some understanding about God, whether he believes it or not to exist, this understanding of God exists on his mind. If a person understands ‘k,’ then ‘k’ exists in the intellect of this person. Therefore, we can say God exists...
... middle of paper ...
...erties of any other object, think that there is no difference to make the argument of whether god exist or not because of his unique properties.
In the criticism from Alvin Plantinga to Anselm’s ontological argument, Plantinga defends the argument using the idea of possible worlds. As he argues, we might think of a possible world similar or different to the actual world. First, let the fool admit that the existence of God is ‘possible,’ meaning that if God exist, he exists necessarily. Plantinga’s argument is about the idea of understanding that god possibly exists; he is not really arguing that god exists. Suppose god exists in a possible world, in reality we can consider that ‘possible world’ to exist, therefore, if god exists. To say that p is possibly necessarily true is to say that, with regard to one world, it is true at all worlds that god possibly exists.
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...
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 any way possible. This argument can be understood more simply through the illustration of the painter that Anselm used.
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.
Anselm was a stable believer in God, so he wanted to use logic and reason to confirm his faith and clarify God’s existence. Anselm’s argument was given in chapter two of Proslogion. Its main focus is the meaning of God. Furthermore, he claims that everyone, whether they trust in God or not, agrees with this definition. Anselm says there is a difference between understanding that God exists and understanding him to be a concept.
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.
without the proof of the fact. But on the other hand, God’s existence can not be. proved in terms of objective arguments and scientific facts. In answer to the question, God’s existence cannot be proved, but neither can his.
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...
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
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'.
He defined God as ‘That than which nothing greater can be conceived’ (TTWNGCBC). Arguably this definition is our best way of understanding of what God is. Even Aquinas, who stated God’s existence is beyond our comprehension, may argue that this definition holds truest to God’s existence, describing him as beyond anything than we can possibly imagine. From here, Anselm moves on to prove the existence of God based on this definition. There are two types of existence, he states, existence in intellectu (in the mind) and existence in re (in reality). The artist can conceive of a painting in intellectu before he makes his creation an actuality (in re). From here Anselm argues that existence in re is clearly greater than existence in intellectu. This seems relatively coherent. Surely, if someone proposed to me the possibility of merely conceiving of £1000 it would be greater to actually have it. Just as Anselm looks at the painter, it appears greater for the painting to actually exist in re than remaining in intellectu. Based on our understanding of God, therefore (TTWNGCBC), even ‘the fool’ (the atheist) can grasp the concept of a being greater than which nothing else can be imagined in intellectu. However, since existence in re is greater than purely existing in intellectu, it would be ‘damaging to God’s nature’, states Lockyer, to exist whereby he could have a
Importantly, the Fool must be able to understand the idea of “that than which nothing greater can be thought” without yet conceding that God exists. By contemplating the phrase “that than which nothing greater can be thought,” the Fool generates an idea of God that ultimately requires him to accept that God exists. To be clear, Anselm is not arguing that God depends upon the Fool’s ideas, but rather that the way in which we go about conceiving of God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought” reveals that He must exist. In an analogous conceptual process, we understand that circles are necessarily round after learning the definition of a circle. Likewise, we understand that God exists after learning what constitutes “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” In this way, the mind plays an active role in this argument because it is the tool by which one can reveal the necessity of God’s
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
We experience a similar problem when we think of ‘a real God’, and ‘an imaginary God’. Perhaps I perceive God in a specific way, and to me, he is a being “that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought” (Bailey, 2002). This proves that my perception of God exists for me, but what of everyone else’s perceptions of God? We must recognize a problem with this, in that everyone may perceive a ‘greater’ God in a very different way. We know that there are different perceptions of the ‘greater’ God because we have evidence of it in the various religions and the contrasting views of their God. With this in mind, all Anselm is able to prove with his argument is that every person’s individual perception of God does exist, but no on...