Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Saint Anselm’s ontological argument
Conclusion to the effectiveness of the ontological argument
Conclusion to the effectiveness of the ontological argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Saint Anselm’s ontological argument
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Ontological arguments are arguments based purely on reason which are used to reach a conclusion that God exists. Most of the times these arguments begin with some necessary and well known premise and build up on it step by step using logic and deductive reasoning to connect the dots and end up with the conclusion that God exists. Ontological arguments have been around for many a years but the first and most well known argument was given by St. Anselm in 11th century and his argument is what I am going to analyse in this assignment.
Criticism of St. Anselm ontological argument-:
1- St. Anselm argument concludes that a perfect being which we have named God does exist in reality. But I can apply this same argument on a country rather than a being. I can conceive of a perfect country in my mind, a country in which every citizen is happy and there is no suffering. A country which is the best and no better country than it can be imagined. Now using the similar method of deductive reasoning that St. Anselm did, I can conclude that a perfect country does exist. But it
…show more content…
Therefore, in this case God is God on if it exists otherwise it is an entirely different entity named X. When we are talking about an idea that exists only in mind then we are talking about X. But if X exist in reality then is no longer X but God itself. Now if we apply ontological arguments on God, we begin with conceiving God as an idea in mind. But can I actually conceive God in this case? In this case if God does not exist, we cannot conceive God either as we would conceive X rather than God. If there is no God, conceiving it is impossible in this case. So even if we assume existence to be a property, St. Anselm’s arguments still fails as one of its premises is that ‘we can think of God as an idea in mind’ which is prohibited in this case and it breaks down the whole
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
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...
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.
He states that he can conceive the existence of a 'wonderful lost island', which is perfect, just by thinking about the idea. However Anselms counter objects to Gaunilo's argument by saying that only the idea of god can be thought of as necessarily existing because it is unique. Aquinas makes his views known, and I believe it would be beneficial to identify them because they are relevant to the question. Aquinas states the God's existence may indeed be self-evident, but it is not self-evident to us because we do not understand the essence of God. Furthermore we (man) may self-evidently desire happiness, and God may be man's happiness but we dont desire God through ignorance.
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.
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...
St. Anselm came up with the first and most well-known ontological argument (Oppy, 2012, para. 2). His argument was conceptual rather than empirical in that it did not require any empirical evidence to ensure the success of his argument (Himma, n.d. para. 3). St. Anselm sought to “gain evidence without the need of a corresponding real-world experiment” (Fehige, 2009, p. 249). According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, St. Anselm’s argument was an “attempt to show that we can deduce God’s existence from, so to speak, the very definition of God” (Himma, n.d., para. 3). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy further goes on to say that claims of existence usually require empirical evidence or research of some kind (Himma, n.d., sec. 1 para. 1). Now, that’s exactly what St. Anselm’s ontological argument is; it’s a claim of existence. St. Anselm says it is an argument for the existence of God, but for now I will simply use his terms that...
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.
The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even atheist had a definition for God even just to disregard his existence; hence God exists in the mind. Anselm said this is so because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind.
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.
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
Anselm’s Ontological argument is insufficient in proving that God exists. For the reasons above and further objections from various philosophers, I do not believe that Anselm can argue the existence of God with his current premises as they stand. I must say that despite my objections to Anselm’s Ontological argument, I respect his work done, and the tremendous thought process that must have occurred to conjure up such a case as was presented. It is definitely much easier to prove a mortal wrong than it is to prove the existence of something so great and so unknown. Anselm’s Ontological argument while intriguing does have some problems in my opinion that take away from its validity; but needless to say it is in and of itself quite astounding.
However, if we picture God as something that could be everywhere, surrounding us like air or awareness, then, understanding if and what God is - all of a sudden - becomes a possibility. I am sure you can agree: if there is a God, then God has to exist and has to be aware of His Existence (can you even picture an unconscious God). Also, He must exist on his own, which means: God must be self-energetic. That is the safest thing we can say without too much speculation.