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.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this method. However, it does become a problem when a deductive argument is attempting to bring something into existence. We simply cannot do that, for it goes against the common sense laws of logic. Gaunilo offered us an example famously known as the “Isle of the Blessed” (Peterson 173). In this example, he attempts to use the same deductive form Anselm uses to bring an island into existence. “Because it is better that such a perfect island exists in reality than simply in the mind alone, this Isle of the Blest must necessarily exist” (Pojman 42).
...
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
Throughout the pages, Tillich provides an alternative ontological examination of the necessity in a belief of the Ultimate. The emblematic apologetic approach, as articulated in the works of St. Anselm, William of Ockham, and Duns Scotus, is destabilized by Tillich’s radical exposition that: If God is being – viz., the highest being-in-itself – then God cannot be the “Creator”. Consequently, God must be
The controversial topic involving the existence of God has been the pinnacle of endless discourse surrounding the concept of religion in the field of philosophy. However, two arguments proclaim themselves to be the “better” way of justifying the existence of God: The Cosmological Argument and the Mystical Argument. While both arguments attempt to enforce strict modus operandi of solidified reasoning, neither prove to be a better way of explaining the existence of God. The downfall of both these arguments rests on commitment of fallacies and lack of sufficient evidence, as a result sabotaging their validity in the field of philosophy and faith.
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...
His final point was that if Anselm’s argument can be used as a template to prove the existence of a non-existent perfect island which is far less great than God.then his Ontological argument is flawed. To conclude, Anselm’s ontological argument is based purely on reason. Therefore, you must already believe in the idea of God existing in order to accept this argument. This is the a priori aspect of this argument. However, as this argument uses your own logic alone, it does pose contradicting issues which Gaunilo’s critique highlighted.
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.
The Existence of God Being Proved A Priori The existence of God can be proved a priori by a logical deduction from the concept of God, when we think about the idea of God we realise that real existence is an essential part of how we conceive the idea of God. God therefore necessarily exists so that it is impossible for him to not exist. I belive to be necessary to examine Anselm's version of the ontological argument, in order to answer the above question, namely whether God's existence can be proved a priori. Anselm states that a non believing fool (in the Psalms) can coceive the idea that God is 'a being than which none greater can be thought' because he understands it.
In conclusion, although Descartes and Anselm’s arguments were produced in two different periods; they follow the same line of thinking. Through a priori knowledge and reason, they have drawn the conclusion that God exists. The fundamental part of the Ontological Argument is that, we are able to prove God’s existence because we are able to believe it so. The Ontological Argument does not look at designs in the physical universe, but at our mind’s logic that had led to the belief that God exists in reality. “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” – God is greater than anything that exists in both reality and thought.
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.
The human race has successfully repeated one of its most reliable cycles. It all starts with a piece of revolutionary technology; new possibilities begin to unveil themselves after a few clever updates and uses. Yet even as the vast majority finds promise in the new tech, critics never fail to spout their condemnations. From books to television, they have been consistent in their efforts to prevent automation. With the advent of digital technology - such as phones or computers - a new wave of critics has washed ashore. Despite the past doomsday predictions, humanity continues to thrive. Does this mean that it’s safe to disregard the new batch of naysayers as a miscalculated group of luddites? If they are correct, and we’re less capable and negatively affected by our own technology, then we should be concerned.
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).
Technology Is What You Make It The articles “How Computers Change the Way We Think” by Sherry Turkle and “Electronic Intimacy” by Christine Rosen argue that technology is quite damaging to society as a whole and that even though it can at times be helpful it is more damaging. I have to agree and disagree with this because it really just depends on how it is used and it can damage or help the user. The progressing changes in technology, like social media, can both push us, as a society, further and closer to and from each other and personal connections because it has become a tool that can be manipulated to help or hurt our relationships and us as human beings who are capable of more with and without technology. Technology makes things more efficient and instantaneous.
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.
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.