The most compelling or interesting notions in the Proslogion, to me, are that Anselm presumes we can all imagine God; and that imagining God makes God real. What if we can't imagine God? What if such a thing is singularly impossible? How does imagining a thing make it real, and isn't this a reification fallacy? Even if I follow Anselm's logic and agree (and I paraphrase in the extreme) that God is the most possible perfect being I can imagine; and since a property of the most possible perfection necessarily must include actual existence, then God must necessarily exist--even if I concede this, I still can't get over the hurdle of my own imagination and its inherent human limits--I do not find that I can truly imagine God (though this does not mean I can't believe in God; from my perspective, imagination and definition are …show more content…
not prerequisites to belief). God is the timeless, non-spatial, omnipotence responsible for all that was, is, or will be; the author of Creation (with a very deliberate capital C); the engineer of everything. God is not just all-knowing, He is knowledge in-fact. He doesn't simply see all points in time, He sees all points so metaphysically "simultaneously" that there is literally no word in any human language to fully describe and encapsulate what such a thing even means (you can't use words that describe the measure of time to describe a thing that is outside of time and can't be measured). Already my head hurts: just trying to conceive the inconceivable is beyond tiring.
And yet...isn't this exactly what Anselm indicated? Anselm tells us that God is "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought". Isn't this what I've begun to describe above? I don't think so. I really only described the square circle, the empty solid, the loud silence-- contradictions, one and all. Yet, if I can't imagine a square circle or a loud silence (or any other nonsensical oxymoron), how can I possibly imagine Anselm's vision of God? Once I remove the nonsense of colorless green ideas sleeping furiously, everything I can actually imagine can reasonably be imagined +1 greater this afternoon, or tomorrow morning, or by my more imaginative neighbor. It's like counting natural numbers: you can never imagine the greatest number, because there is always another number after that one. I see God the same way--whatever I can possibly imagine is less than the sum of God; and no, saying that God is more than I can imagine is not equivalent to saying that God is more than can be imagined--and it certainly doesn't in any rational way allow the reification 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 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 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.
To defend the lord’s existence, he begins by presenting the argument that God is “something that than which nothing greater can be though” (432). This is apparent as God trumps all things that exist in this world as He is the creator therefore, the greatest of all. Certainly, if He is greater than what can be thought, then for the same reason He must
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 argument does not seem plausible to an unbiased person, even at the very first reading. It seems as if not all aspects of the question under scrutiny have been considered. The basic assumption, on which the entire argument stands, that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined can seem doubtful to a person who doubts the existence of God, for if one doubts that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived, then he may also be sceptical if any person has thoughts about the same being, whose existence itself is doubtful. The argument seems to “beg the question”. Moreover, St. Anselm’s idea of existence is not very clear.
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.
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'.
... God and how He is related to us – how powerful He is to make everything in this world works; how He made everything almost perfect for us. I have also learned that believing He exist, makes me understand more about His existence, just like what St. Anselm said. I believe that believing He exists, is what makes Him exist. For me, Yes, God really exist.
The biblical narrative is one that is still going on to this day. The biblical narrative tells the story of God and how he reveals himself to us. Rhodes points out that “God comes to each through a historical event or series of events” (2). It is in this way that God reveals himself to us and this maintains the relevance of the biblical narrative in our lives. God reveals himself through formative stories in the bible such as Creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall of Man, The Flood, God’s Covenant with Noah, and the Tower of Babel. From the very beginning of the biblical narrative we see that God relates to us on a personal level. He created us, he formed us, he created the world in which we live, and he has been an active participant in the narrative since before it began.
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.