In this paper I will argue that Anselm 's ontological argument for the existence of God is so adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the greatest Conceivable Being. In order to accomplish this, I will argue that Anselm 's premises are sound, and that his conclusion rightfully follows his premises. I will support Anselm 's argument by representing that objections to Anselm 's argument are unsuccessful. My focus will be on Gaunilo 's objection to Anselm 's argument. Basically, Gauinilo 's objection is that Anselm 's argument can be transformed to prove the existence of any idea just by using the definition that the concept is bigger than all different concepts which can be conceived, this will be disproven. According to Anselm, we can identify God as “something than which nothing greater can be conceived”. This means that if nothing greater than God can be conceived, we might say that God is the "Greatest Conceivable Being”. By simple definition, a most perfect being does exist; this being, however, may not be what Anselm imagines as God. Therefore, rather than establishing that God is the most perfect being in existence, Anselm argues that God is so perfect that no more perfect being can even be conceived. Anselm begins his …show more content…
To this end, Anselm moves on to provide an example of however one thing will exist within the mind and in reality. Anselm gives the example of a painter. Before a painter creates a picture, claims Anselm, he has an understanding of what the painting will look like in his mind. Upon completion of the painting, the painter will perceive that it exists in his mind, for they had the image of the painting before he created it, and in reality, because currently they will see the painting before themselves with their own eyes (Anselm 7). As a result, I see that Anselm 's ontological argument is both valid, and
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
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 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.
One of the most argued topics throughout human history is whether or not God exists. It is argued frequently because there are several different reasonings and sub arguments in this main argument. People who believe God exists argue how God acts and whether there is one or several. People who do not believe God exists argue how the universe became into existence or if it has just always existed. In this paper, I will describe Craig's argument for the existence of God and defend Craig's argument.
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 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.
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.
In the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely illogical in itself, is the center of Anselm's illogical argument, and something that I will try to explain. First, we must define "that which we can conceive of nothing." What can this possibly mean? It seems that this is the limit of what we can conceive. What this is, I cannot say because it is inconceivable. Anselm claims that what is beyond this is God. He is telling us that God is the highest possible being. This is the sum of his argument. What I want to know is how we can conceive the existence of something that is beyond all that is conceivable. While there are obvious problems with his logic, Anselm firmly believes that God is the greatest of all beings.
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).
Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is "that than which none greater can be conceived". Firstly, it must be emphasised that Anselm’s definition does not limit God to being the "greatest" but makes it known that nothing greater can be thought than God himself. Therefore, God should not in any way be linked to terms such as ‘omnipotent’ as terminology such as this limit him to what he really is. With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality. Anselm uses the example of "the fool" to prove his point on God’s existence. He says that when "the fool" says that "There is no God" in Psalms, he must therefore understand what he hears , and what he understands in his intellect by the term "God". Therefore, if he knows what God is, God must exist as it is impossible to know what something is if it does not exist.
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
In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm presents his famous ontological argument for the existence of God. This argument can be formally summarized into five premises. The first premise that Anselm presents is “you exist, as we believe.”(Proslogion, Ch.2) Meaning that God exist as an idea of the mind, and the human idea of God is that there is no greater being that exist. Anselm than presents his second premise that an idea that is in the mind and also exist in reality, is greater than an idea that only exist in the mind. Something that can be imagined and tangible is considered perfection. The third premise states that since God only exist in the mind, than it is capable for humans to think of something greater. However, Anselm’s
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.