It is important to show why the topic you are discussing is important, especially if there are other topics that could be studied in place of the one you are discussing. In this case, the discussion is on Saint Anselm and his Ontological Argument. There have been other arguments made before Saint Anselm on God's existence, and the first paragraph will show why it is important to study this particular argument. Then the argument itself is given and discussed. And just like most arguments in the field of philosophy, the Ontological Argument has an objection. This too is given and discussed.
* * * * *
Saint Anselm takes a different approach than St. Thomas Aquinas and William Paley when trying to prove that God exists. In St. Aquinas' Cosmological Argument and Paley's Teleogical Argument, the premises were a posteriori, meaning they could only be accepted as true after ("post") experience. You must have experienced or dealt with motion before to accept Aquinas' argument, and you must know what a watch and rock look like to accept Paley's argument. Just understanding the concept of motion, a watch, and a rock is not sufficient to accept the arguments. However, St. Anselm's argument does not require that you experience things. It only requires a priori beliefs, meaning if you understand a proposition then you can believe it is true. Just as the term suggests, a priori propositions "are knowable prior to, or independently of, experience" (82).
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...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
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).
Another key point, is to break the writing into sections, so it is easier to understand and grasp what the author is arguing about. It is for you to describe the text and be able to put it in your own words or summarize
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”,
... 77-78. Also, if we follow Karl Barth. s interpretation of Anselm. s ontological argument, then the prayerful context in which Anselm offers his argument gives it a more religious cast. However, whatever similarities may exist I think it vital to recognize the differences otherwise one will expect to find yet another bit of metaphysical argumentation about God and be disappointed at not finding it.
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...
Before I started any essay in this class, I needed to find a question at issue. Finding a good question at issue means that it is arguable. Not an issue that no one would disagree with. Once a question at issue is established, I then come up with my enthymeme, which provides my claim and position to the question at issue. Following my claim is my because clause which states my reasoning. All three of my essays introduce the question at issue within the introductory. The introduction serves as foreshadowing of what my essay will be about and finally what I will be arguing. I introduced my enthymeme at the end of my introduction paragraph on all of my essays. In my first essay I address my question at issue by stating, “The photographer captures moments in time with hopes of these images having a positive influence on society” (Essay 1, 1) this raises a question at issue. Do photographs showing government interaction affect society ethical? After addressing this question at issue I moved right into my enthymeme to state my position backed by reason.
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.
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 though 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.
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 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.
Anslem is a philosopher who used the ontological way of thinking to explain God's existence. The ontological thought process shows the existence and being of a thing. Anselm's argument is that God is "this being that so truly exists that it cannot be even thought not to exist" (p. 860). The thoughts and ideas that are in your mind correspond to what exists. However, if you think about things that don't exist it is not as good. The things that exist are real and God's creation, and to understand this existance is even better. God is one who always exists and makes existence possible. In Anselm's argument he states God " of all things exist to the highest degree"(p. 860). He is saying God is the supreme being and is treated as a primary idea. In addition, Anslem describes God as " truthful, happy and whatever it is better to be than not to be-for it is better to be just rather than unjust, and happy rather that unhappy"(861). This means that God represents everything that is good and real. However, we cant subject God to our thinking because he is greater than our thinking and stands apart from it. Anselm's ontological argument is how he explains God as a necessary cause.
Anselm’s ontological argument can be viewed as a proof by contradiction - taking God to refer to Anselm’s “being than which nothing greater can be conceived” :
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.
For many, the idea of existence as a predicate causes issues for the ontological argument. In the argument Anselm states that God is a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and using logic he comes to the conclusion that God must exist by definition. This can be seen as strength to the argument as if it is a valid deduction it proves God’s existence to an atheist as well as a believer. However, Kant counters this argument by saying that existence could not be a predicate of anything. This is because a predicate should be something that enriches our concept of what the thing is like. For example, Kant uses the analogy of a pile of one hundred coins, by saying that an imaginary pile of coins has the exact same value as a pile of one hundred coins that exists in reality. By adding existence to the idea it does not enrich our concept of said coins or make them any better, but will only state what is real. Therefore existence can’t be a predicate of anything, so therefore can’t be a predicate of God. As the argument is reliant on this assumption, it falls apart as the deductions made are based on this whole concept. To counter this, the philosopher Malcolm disagrees with Kant by saying that existence can be a property of a necessary being such as God. The same concept can’t be applied to contingent beings, such as coins, because they are imperfect beings. I don’t believe this to be valid however, as we don’t know for certain anything about God’s properties. Aquinas believes, as humans we don’t have the intellect to prove God’s existence Overall, this shows that the ontological argument doesn’t prove God’s existence, as existence can’t be a predicate, so any deductions made from this assumption can’t form valid conclusion...
Furthering this line of inquiry into god(s) existence as it has been discussed within my section of Problem of God, the question which all other discourse relies upon is whether or not god(s) exist at all. To tackle this, my class has had readings from two saints, the Proslogion of St. Anselm and St.Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. From the Proslogion, I gleamed circular reasoning. St.Anselm’s argument to prove his God’s existence begins with the caveat that a person must believe in a god figure(s) to even comprehend his argument. Therefore, he is only affirming his God’s existence to those who already believe and reducing his argument to a simple exercise in attempting logic. St. Anselm explains the existence of God as obvious because of the characteristic so tightly bound to being godly, perfection. St. Anselm reasons that perfection is absolutely indicative of true existence. The argument falls apart given a person who does not believe or, if a person does decide to agree with St. Anselm that God exists, the argument can be challenged because of what my