Anselm's Existence of God Refuted Anselm's Existence of God Refuted If the only proofs for the existence of God were Aquinas’s five ways and Anselm’s ontological argument, in my opinion, Anselm provides the best reasoning. I am not saying that Anselm’s argument is good, or even valid, but just that given the set of proofs by Aquinas and Anselm, Anselm’s is better. Anselm argues, in effect, that the existence of God is built into the very concept of God. He proceeds by a form of argument called reductio ad absurdum -- reduction to absurdity. He attempts to show that the position of the fool -- the non-believer who has said in his heart, "There is no God" -- is incoherent and leads to absurdity. (Cottingham, 1996: 246) How does Anselm's reductio work? A fully satisfactory answer to this question is not exactly simple. The idea appears to be this: The argument depends on a definition of sorts. Anselm says of God: “We believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be thought.” (Cottingham, 1996: 246) We can put this in shorthand by saying that Anselm understands God to be the greatest conceivable being -- the GCB, for short Now you might protest that you do not use the word "God" in this way. Nevertheless, that does not really matter. If Anselm can show that such a being exists, then he has shown something remarkable whatever you call the being. Furthermore, it is not clear why anyone should resist calling such a being God. Now another worry may occur to you: conceivable by whom? The answer is conceivable by anyone, no matter how imaginative or brilliant. In fact, what Anselm really seems to be after is the greatest possible being, though he proceeds in terms of what we can or do conceive. The atheist... ... middle of paper ... ...elieve that Anselm would argue that there could not be two gods. For if there were, then it would be possible to use the same argument to prove that there are an infinite number of gods. Anselm would attack this argument at premise two. Because if God were the greatest that could be conceived, then it would be impossible to conceive of anything greater. Since two gods is greater that one God, then even if it was impossible to conceive of two gods, it would be no greater than conceiving of one God. I will actually agree with Anselm on this argument, given his definition of God. Since he defines his notion of God to be that which a greater could not exist, it is impossible to prove that something greater exists, just by his definition of God. Bibliography: Cottingham, John. (1996).Western Philosophy: An Anthropology. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
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 begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
Anselm begins by supposing that we, as functional human beings, can understand his definition of God. As Anselm himself puts it, even “when the fool [atheist] hears the words ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’, he understands what he hears.” This premise is intended to demonstrate the fact that when we conceptualize something (e.g. God), the thing that we are conceptualising exists in our underst...
Examining the two works against each other as if it were a debate makes it a bit clearer to compare. Aquinas, reveals his argument under the groundwork that there are essentially two methods of understanding the truth. One being that it can be surmised through reason an logic, and the other being via inner faith. On the surface at this point it could be argued that this ontological determination a bit less convoluted than Anselm, yet I tend to think it could be a bit more confusing. This is what leads him to the claim that the existence of God can be proven by reason alone or “a priori”. Stemming from this belief he formulated his Five Proofs or what he called the “Quinquae Viae”. The first of which is fairly simple based on the fact that something in motion had to have been moved. Agreeing that something set it in motion therefor there must have been a...
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.
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...
This assignment is regarding the Philosophers Saint Anselm on Ontological argument and Saint Thomas Aquinas on Cosmological argument in the thirteenth century. Therefore, I will be researching their arguments consisting of our course book and the internet to find their similarities and differences in their views on God’s existence. I will express my feeling and views on both the philosophers the best possible way that I can. It has been a challenge for me trying to understand each of their views on demonstrating God’s existence.
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.
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
And yet...isn't this exactly what Anselm indicated? Anselm tells us that God is "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought". Isn't this what I've begun to describe above? I don't think so. I really only described the square circle, the empty solid, the loud silence-- contradictions, one and all. Yet, if I can't imagine a square circle or a loud silence (or any other nonsensical oxymoron), how can I possibly imagine Anselm's vision of God? Once I remove the nonsense of colorless green ideas sleeping furiously, everything I can actually imagine can reasonably be imagined +1 greater this afternoon, or tomorrow morning, or by my more imaginative neighbor. It's like counting natural numbers: you can never imagine the greatest number, because there is always another number after that one. I see God the same way--whatever I can possibly imagine is less than the sum of God; and no, saying that God is more than I can imagine is not equivalent to saying that God is more than can be imagined--and it certainly doesn't in any rational way allow the reification of
Anselm based his argument on the assumption that everything in our world exists but does not necessarily have to. In other words, we can just conceive them as not existing in the first place, since we do not need them to be real. However, Anselm’s argument does not apply to the existence of the Ultimate Reality, which is also
For example we know there is air, we can’t see air but it’s there and we believe it’s there, same applies when we talk about the existence of God. Does it validate God existence simply because we can’t see God, it doesn’t so we would have to introduce more evidence to actually prove that God doesn’t exist. Anslem also introduces that if we as humans in our minds can understand something and think about it that concludes that, if can think about and understand God then God must exist; Because how can you understand and think about something that doesn't exist. That just means God does exist because if God didn't there would be no way we would think about or understand God in our minds, God just wouldn't be a conversation to begin with. In the words of philosopher Anselm “No one who understands what God is can possibly conceive that he doesn’t exist” so it’s a whole concept of whatever the human mind can grasp, it is in existence. Also if we can grasp the idea of God existing, we can also as humans grasp the idea of God conceive human life. There is nothing
We experience a similar problem when we think of ‘a real God’, and ‘an imaginary God’. Perhaps I perceive God in a specific way, and to me, he is a being “that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought” (Bailey, 2002). This proves that my perception of God exists for me, but what of everyone else’s perceptions of God? We must recognize a problem with this, in that everyone may perceive a ‘greater’ God in a very different way. We know that there are different perceptions of the ‘greater’ God because we have evidence of it in the various religions and the contrasting views of their God. With this in mind, all Anselm is able to prove with his argument is that every person’s individual perception of God does exist, but no on...
His argument is complicated, and is easily disproved. If God is the greatest being, then there is no room for anything else. Therefore, I do not believe Anselm’ argument withstands its critique. Guanilo proves that Anselm’s theory is disprovable because there is no actual evidence of God existing, just as there is no actual evidence that the Lost Island that he explains exists. Anselm states that god not only is a belief, but he actually exists. This theory is not concrete because no one has actually seen god. If he existed, we would need proof, someone had to of seen him, right? If one was to believe the claim that god existed, then ultimately they would believe that he exists. Since to understand is to believe, it is illogical to understand the theory and still not agree with
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