The argument to side with in this paper is that of Anselm’s “Proslogian” where he argues for the existence of God in a less complex way as compared to the Monologian. Inevitably, the Proslogian received criticism from other notable philosophers, some of which will be addressed in this paper as well. Once the fool understands that than which nothing greater can be thought, he will comprehend the existence of God. The divine attributes of God will also be discussed to aid in the fool’s understanding of God’s existence. The premises of the ontological argument are as follows:
1. If that than which nothing greater can be thought can be thought, then it exists in reality.
2. It can be thought.
3. Therefore, That than which nothing greater can be thought (it) exists in reality.
The main reason for the writing of the Proslogian was to offer a standalone argument that would explain the existence of God but also the various attributes that Christians believe God has. Some of these attributes belong only to God while some He shares with His creatures. The attribute of All-Powerful complements Anselm’s argument “that than which nothing greater can be thought”. God is the creator of the universe, He is present everywhere, He is Infinite and Unchanging. A fool may not fully comprehend God’s essence, but Anselm offers the Proslogian as a more simple argument to aid in the understanding of the existence of God.
There is a difference in the object existing in the mind as compared to the object actually existing. For example when a movie director plans beforehand what he or she is going to film, he has the idea in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet made the film. However, when he has actua...
... middle of paper ...
..., 2014. http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html
B Magee, Joseph M. Aquinas Online.2013. May 4, 2014. http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html
N Meg Wallace, “The Ontological Argument,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May 4, 2014, http://www.unc.edu/~megw/OntologicalArg.html
B Wallace, Meg. “The Ontological Argument, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, May 4 2014, http://www.unc.edu/~megw/OntologicalArg.html
N Thomas Williams. "Saint Anselm". Edited by Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition): Section 2. May 3, 2014 http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/anselm
B Williams, Thomas. "Saint Anselm". Edited by Edward N. Zalta. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition): Section 2. May 3, 2014 http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/anselm.
Plato, and G. M. A. Grube. "Phaedo." Five Dialogues. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2002. 93-
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
* Sadler, Gregory B. "Intro. to Philosophy: Plato's Crito." YouTube Video. YouTube. Gregory B. Sadler, Marist College, 13 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Apr. 2013..
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...
"Plato." Literature of the Western World, Volume 1. 5th edition by Brian Wilkie and James Hurt. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2001. 1197-1219.
Descartes, René. "Meditation Three." Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Third Edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993. 24-35. Paperback.
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.
Soccio, Douglas J. "The Philosopher-King:Plato." Archetypes of Wisdom. 7th ed. Bellmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995. 121+. Print.
Barron, L.(2006) ONTOLOGY in Jupp, V (ed, 2006) The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods
Wolf, Susan. "Moral Saints." Gendler, Tamar Szabo, Susanna Siegel and Steven M. Cahn. The Elements of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 220-232.
Descartes, Rene. The Philosophical Writings, tr. John Cottingham and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Descartes: Philosophical Letters, translated and edited by Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1970 pp. 11f, 14f, 236f, 150f.
two distinct kinds of entities, bodies and minds (1). All objects that exist or can exist belong to one of these categories. The two forms are said to be mutually exclusive and commonly defined by fundamentally different characteristics, yet both are required to accurately define the world around us. According to Descartes, the body is a tangible physical substance (the unthinking thing), whereas the mind is an intangible non-physical substance (the thinking thing) and comes metaphysically before the body (3). The mind and body casually interact with one another while maintaining their distinctiveness: the eyes perceive objects and then focus the image to the pineal gland, where it transmits the information to the non-physical mind; the mind then may transmit a signal to the body, telling it what to do. The mind and body are independent from one another, yet they work in harmony; the mind receives signals from the body and the body responds to signals from the mind.
This paper's purpose is to prove the existence of God. There are ten main reasons that are presented in this paper that show the actuality of God. It also shows counter-arguments to the competing positions (the presence of evil). It also gives anticipatory responses to possible objections to the thesis.
Pope, Alexander. "Essay on Man." Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces 6th ed. Ed. Maynard Mack et.al. New York: Norton, 1992. 326-333