In the 11th century St. Anselm of Canterbury wrote the Prosologion, where he formulated the ontological argument of God’s existence. The beginning of his argument begins with propositions that do not rely on experience to believe that God’s existence is tangible. Furthermore, throughout Anselm’s argument he portrays logical and rational statements to show strong evidence of God’s existence (Oppy, par. 2). The main focus of this ontological argument is to counter the fool’s belief that there is no God, in this case the fool being Gaunilo. Guanilo was a monk of France and was one of many who criticized Anselm’s ontological argument. In Gaunilo’s argument he modeled that just like conceiving about God it should also be possible to conceive of …show more content…
Anselm’s argument he starts by stating the concept of a “being than which no greater can be conceived”. This statement is one of the strategies Anselm uses to defend the existence of God. St. Anselm has confidence that if individuals understand the terminology of God and existence and also can understand what it means to speak of him, they must then come to the conclusion that he is of existence (Halsall, par. 14). This statement then leads everyone to believe that God definitely exists in our understanding as well as the atheist mind. The preposition that a being existing in reality is far greater than solely in the mind, assists Anselm’s argument of proving God’s existence. He believes that if God exists in reality then that would contradict the statement of a “being than which no greater can be conceived” because that would mean something greater could be conceived (Halsall, par 13). Anselm’s argument then looks something like this, God is greater than which nothing greater could be conceived from this statement there then can be nothing greater imagined. So if God in fact did not exist then there could be something greater conceived but there is not, therefore God does exist (Oppy, par. …show more content…
First off, all individuals have a different idea of their perfect island. In addition, individuals could continuously ask for more of what is desired in their minds because there is an endless number of resources available. For example, if someone desired to have more fruit or birds on their perfect island they could always continue to get more of it. When Gaunilo compares this to God he did not take into consideration the various powers that God grants. When Anselm addresses God to be the greatest conceivable being he is referring to Gods genuine features that are offered (Himma, par. 12). God has the power to, sustain all possible of knowledge in the world (omniscience), maintain pure goodness in addition to moral perfection (omnibenevolece), and also have an infinite amount of power (omnipotent). In this sense one cannot ask anything greater than that of God due to the fact that he can offer anything that the mind can imagine (Halsall, par. 7). Furthermore, Mulla Sadra an Islamic philosopher assists Anselm to defeat the fool’s objection. Sadra placed the argument of the righteous to prove the existence of God and to prove that he is indeed necessary. Sadra’s argument begins with the fact that there is existence, and existence is a perfection that is above of any perfection that may be conceived. There is only one singular being of perfection that
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
The three readings that form the basis of this essay all deal with the existence
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.
St. Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. However, this paper focuses on the fifth argument. The fifth argument is regarded as the Teleological Argument and states that things that lack intelligence act for some end or purpose. While the fifth argument satisfies God’s existence for Aquinas, some contemporary readers would argue that Aquinas neglects the laws of physics. Others argue that Aquinas allows a loophole in his argument so that the Catholic conception of God is not the only intelligent designer.
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.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
...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.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
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'.
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
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...