St. Anselm Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
There are various types of ontological arguments for the existence of God. The ontological argument was first formulate Descartes. Some contend, however, that there can be no dialectically effective ontological argument. In other words, the belief in God cannot, according to many, be established as reasonable. Never-the-less, arguments attempting to disprove the existence of God cannot be proved reasonable either. Because of this standoff, it is sometimes contended that ontological arguments are in fact completely worthless in their attempts to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Despite this criticism, however, these arguments are of considerable
…show more content…
Kant contended that Anselm had simply defined God into existence. Kant argues, for example, that:
“’Being’ is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves” (Pojman 72).
Kant also argues that Anselm treats the concepts of “existence” and “being” as first order predicates (Pojman 73). Contentions such as this are only understandable upon closer examination of Anselm’s argument. Indeed, Anselm’s argument for the existence of God devotes considerable attention to definitions. In part, it explores the relevance and connotations of the term “existence”. Anselm’s argument presents the philosophical problem of whether:
“existence is a property and whether the notion of necessary existence is intelligible” (Pojman 70).
By far the most important aspect of Anselm’s argument, however, is its religious significance (Pojman 70). Anselm’s argument distinguishes itself from other traditional arguments in that it clearly delineates the properties which distinguish God, i.e. properties such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence (Pojman 70). To Anselm, just as Psalms 14:1 warns, ignoring the proof of God’s existence is an error which only a fool would make (Pojman
…show more content…
In addition to Kant, Gaunilo was one of the staunchest critics of Anselm’s argument about the existence of God. Gaunilo lived during the same time period as Anselm and was one of the fist to launch objections to the argument. Gaunilo saw Anselm’s argument as little more than a magic trick which relied on slight of hand to fool the audience. He uses the example of an enticing island, the Isle of the Blest, to disprove Anselm’s argument. Instead of a greatest possible being Gaunilo inserts the concept of the island into Anselm’s argument. He points out that we can indeed conceive of this island as not existing and therefore Anselm’s argument is invalid. Other philosophers, however, disagree with Guanilo’s criticism. Pojman (72), for example, points out that while we can progressively conceive of a more and more wonderful island the properties of God have an “intrinsic maximum”. God’s properties are not like islands or even like numbers for which you could always conceive of a larger for numbers are infinite. Pojman’s (72) clarification that God’s properties are more like perfect knowledge lend even more weight to the argument that indeed God does exist.
I believe in the existence of God. I am a theist and do not need any extra proof then I already have. I personally think Anselm’s argument is a strong one. Of course, Anselm’s argument will problaby not convince an atheist. Anselm’s argument has strengthened
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
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...
Anselm began with his definition of God. That God is “that then which nothing greater can be conceived” (Id quo nihil mauis potest), meaning that it is impossible for there to be a more perfect being. This leads to the first two premises. Firstly, “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” and secondly, “Something that exists in reality (in re) is bound to be greater than something that exists in the imagination (in intellectu). This leads to the conclusion, that as God is “the greatest conceivable thing”…it is only logical that God exists “both in reality and thought”. Anselm’s essential claim was that existence was a “predicate of God” which means a quality of God’s nature. As God is the “greatest conceivable thing”, He must be great in possible way which includes existing.
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.
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.
Therefore, we have to accord that God is additionally vital, as well as existent in reality, because to contemplate or else involves a contradiction. The reason for people being able to repudiate the attendance of God is due to them knowing the meaning of the word God, not the attendance of God. In this paper, I have argued that Anselm’s ontological argument is reliant on Anselm’s confidential faith in God, Anselm by now trusts in God, and the argument is plain and endeavors to change Anselm’s faith into a kind of intellectual understanding.
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.
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...
Those who support the ontological argument will say the statement "God exists" is analytically true. This means that once we understand the meaning of the word "God" we see that He must exist by definition. Anselm said God's existence was proved by analyzing wha... ... middle of paper ... ...
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
Some kinds of utterances which have an indicative grammatical form seem, for different reasons, to be unable to say something true of the world. Logical contradictions are only the prime example of something the author baptizes impossible descriptions. So-called performative contradictions (e.g., "I do not exist") make up another kind, but there are at least two more such kinds: negating affirmations and performatives which cannot be explained within the philosophy of language. Only philosophical anthropology can explain their feature of "impossibleness," and a distinction between unreflective and reflective consciousness is central to the explanation. Particularly important here is G. H. Mead's distinction between two aspects of the self: the "I" and the "me." Each of the four kinds of impossible descriptions distinguished has its own contrary opposite. These are, in turn, logical tautologies, performative tautologies, affirming negations, and omissive performatives. The last three types as types have not received the philosophical recognition that they deserve. All four fit a general characterization which is given as a definition of the concept of superfluous description.
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.