In this paper, I will examine the ontological argument of Anselm for the existence of God. Anselm defines God as “that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought,” which means, at least for Anselm, that God must exist because he is the greatest being that can be conceived. Furthermore, he argues that all people, whether or not they believe in the existence of God, at least understand his definition, including the fool who denies that God exist. Anselm, in addition to that, describes two main differences between understanding the definition of God, and understanding God to exist.
In the explanation of this argument for the existence of God, Anselm states that God is the greatest being that can be thought and nothing else can be conceived as a greater being than God. For example, when one grasp the idea of God, one thinks of that being as one who has the best properties that could exist in the world such as wisdom, power, knowledge and even the unique essence of existence, and we amplify each attribute to its limits, and as a result we have God. If we can still think of something greater than that, then we have failed to really think of something that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought. This brief explanation of the argument is explained in detail in the following paragraphs.
In the ontological argument, Anselm assumes that the fool understands the concept of God as ‘that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-though,’ even when the fool denies that God exists. Anselm reasons here are that if the fool has some understanding about God, whether he believes it or not to exist, this understanding of God exists on his mind. If a person understands ‘k,’ then ‘k’ exists in the intellect of this person. Therefore, we can say God exists...
... middle of paper ...
...erties of any other object, think that there is no difference to make the argument of whether god exist or not because of his unique properties.
In the criticism from Alvin Plantinga to Anselm’s ontological argument, Plantinga defends the argument using the idea of possible worlds. As he argues, we might think of a possible world similar or different to the actual world. First, let the fool admit that the existence of God is ‘possible,’ meaning that if God exist, he exists necessarily. Plantinga’s argument is about the idea of understanding that god possibly exists; he is not really arguing that god exists. Suppose god exists in a possible world, in reality we can consider that ‘possible world’ to exist, therefore, if god exists. To say that p is possibly necessarily true is to say that, with regard to one world, it is true at all worlds that god possibly exists.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
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...
To conclude, Anselm’s ontological argument is based purely on reason. Therefore, you must already believe in the idea of God existing in order to accept this argument. This is the a priori aspect of this argument. However, as this argument uses your own logic alone, it does pose contradicting issues which Gaunilo’s critique highlighted. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Anselm’s version of the Ontological argument was based on mind’s logic, rather than revelation as it is very difficult to construct a concept without your environment having an effect on your findings.
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.
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.
without the proof of the fact. But on the other hand, God’s existence can not be. proved in terms of objective arguments and scientific facts. In answer to the question, God’s existence cannot be proved, but neither can his.
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.
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...
He concludes he did not create the idea of God. A finite being is incapable of creating an idea of an infinite possibility. Therefore, God must have created the idea already in him when he was created. Concluding that God exists. He also touches upon the idea in which he resolves that it cannot be a deceiver.
A wonderful description of the nature of God’s existence that includes the absolute possession of characteristics that have to be uniquely God was said, “First, God must exist necessarily, which means that God’s existence differs from ours by not being dependent on anything or anyone else, or such as to be taken from him or lost in any way. God has always existed, will always exist and could not do otherwise than to exist. Also, whatever attributes God possesses, he possesses necessarily” (Wood, J., 2010, p. 191).
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.
Importantly, the Fool must be able to understand the idea of “that than which nothing greater can be thought” without yet conceding that God exists. By contemplating the phrase “that than which nothing greater can be thought,” the Fool generates an idea of God that ultimately requires him to accept that God exists. To be clear, Anselm is not arguing that God depends upon the Fool’s ideas, but rather that the way in which we go about conceiving of God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought” reveals that He must exist. In an analogous conceptual process, we understand that circles are necessarily round after learning the definition of a circle. Likewise, we understand that God exists after learning what constitutes “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” In this way, the mind plays an active role in this argument because it is the tool by which one can reveal the necessity of God’s
Ontological arguments, by their nature attempt to prove the existence of God using deductive reasoning to a point of logical necessity. Constructed as an a priori proof Anselm’s ontological argument works from a position of faith in an attempt to strengthen his belief in the existence of God. Anselm asks the question, ‘can what I know about God, be thought of as correct?’ However, the argument does, in some forms, attempt to prove the existence of God reductio ad absurdum. In this essay I shall follow the reasoning of Anselm alongside a discussion of theistic proofs.
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.
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.