St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas were considered as some of the best in their period to represent philosophy. St. Anselm’s argument is known as the ontological argument; it revolves entirely around his statement, “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” (The Great Conversation, Norman Melchert 260). St. Thomas Aquinas’ argument is known as the cosmological argument; it connects the effects of events to the cause for why they happened. Anselm’s ontological proof and Aquinas’ cosmological proof both argued for God’s existence, differed in the way they argued God’s existence, and had varying degrees of success using these proofs. To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument …show more content…
Anselm’s argument can be summarized as, “1. God does not exist. (assumption) 2. By “God,” I mean that, than which no greater can be conceived (NGC). 3. So NGC does not exist. (from 1 and 2) 4. So NGC has being only in my understanding, not also in reality. (from 2 and 3) 5. If NGC were to exist in reality, as well as in my understanding, it would be greater. (from the meaning of “greater”) 6. But then, NGC is not NGC. (from 4 and 5) 7. So, NGC cannot exist only in my understanding. (from 6) 8. So NGC must exist also in reality. (from 5 and 7) 9. So God exists. (from 2 and 8) 10. So God does not exist and God exists. (from 1 to 9) 11. So Premise 1 cannot be true. (by 1 through 10 and the principle of reduction ad absurdum) 12. So God exists. (from 11)” (262). This quote demonstrates how Anselms ontological proof is “God is that, than which no greater can be conceived” in understanding and reality by stating that a contradiction would be made if God didn’t exist in both (262). Aquinas cosmological proof stated that the existence of God could be confirmed in five ways, The Argument- “from Change”, “Efficient Causality”, …show more content…
One of these was brought up by Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo. Gaunilo used Anselm’s proof in regards to an island, if an island was conceived that was more excellent than any other island then the island would still be more excellent in reality; therefore, the island must exist (263). Following Anselm’s proof, Gaunilo came to this conclusion and believed it was absurd because using this logic actual islands would be better than the island that is supposed to be most excellent in reality. Aquinas was considered to have a remarkable system in which he thought. Although he was thought to have intelligence that had not been seen since Aristotle’s time period, atheist, agnostics, and theologians of orthodox continued to doubt his proofs
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...
The Ontological Argument sets out to prove the existence of God, as defined by Anselm as ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’. Without this carefully phrased definition, there would be no argument, as the argument’s leap from imagination to reality occurs here, i.e. from God in the imagination to God in reality. This ‘leap’, or crossover, as presented in Anselm’s reductio ad absurdum argument, is where this essay will focus on most in raising possible objections and identifying any fallacies in the argument.
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.
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.
... does a good job of arguing against the cosmological argument, Aquinas could still be able to defend his argument. Aquinas believes that God’s existence is not only an article of faith. He denies that God’s existence is an unnatural disclosed truth. Instead, Aquinas believes that God’s existence is verifiable. He argues that God’s existence is already presumed through faith and teachings. He claims that God’s existence can be subject to demonstration and that for those believe who believe God’s existence, it will be a matter of faith. Subsequently, not everyone will be able to fully agree with or understand Aquinas’ reasoning or verification for God’s existence. If one agrees with Aquinas they are able to accept his claims through the belief of faithful teachings rather than by the way that those who may not accept it and only search for distinct means of reason.
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...
St. Thomas Aquinas, a catholic priest, was a philosopher, theologian, and scholar. Along with some of his own ideas, he was also influenced by the previous famous philosopher- Aristotle. Under the influence of Aristotle, Aquinas asked himself the question of whether we can have knowledge of God’s existence or not. Then he forms the argument of the five proofs of God’s existence. In order to prove these five existence he also includes Aristotle’s four causes- material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. Aquinas’ five proofs are- proof of motion, proof of efficient cause, proof of necessary versus possible being, proof from degrees of perfection, and proof from design. With this, St. Thomas Aquinas answers his question of whether we can have knowledge of God’s existence or not.
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 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.
... 77-78. Also, if we follow Karl Barth. s interpretation of Anselm. s ontological argument, then the prayerful context in which Anselm offers his argument gives it a more religious cast. However, whatever similarities may exist I think it vital to recognize the differences otherwise one will expect to find yet another bit of metaphysical argumentation about God and be disappointed at not finding it.
The existence of God has been a question that has plagued mankind since it begging of times. Many philosophers argue that there may or may not be a God or Gods, because there is a limited knowledge regarding that. Many people believe in an immortal God that created everything including us, they have fate in their God. Still, a lot of people feel like they need some king of argument or proof on Gods existence, and that is what many philosophers strived tried to explain. In this essay I will be discussing Aquinas’ cosmological argument on Gods existence. I will be presenting Aquinas’ argument, an objection to the argument presented by an atheist that will be followed by a possible response Aquinas might have to the objection and finally an evaluation
This argument is built off of the definition of a greatest conceivable being, in that in order to be the Greatest Conceivable Being it must have all the conceivable perfections. Anselm argues that existence is a perfection, as something imagined becomes more perfect if it in fact exists. For example, suppose you have an ideal date, a person who is in every way perfect, however unfortunately for you they do not exist (Green 43). Wouldn’t that person be more perfect if they existed? A monk named Gaunilo famously criticized this argument by stating by the same logic one would be able to create the “greatest conceivable island” or any item that would be the “greatest conceivable” of its kind. Guanilo effectively showed that one could use the argument to prove the existence of non-existent things. Anselm defended and strengthened his argument however by demonstrating the difference between the quantitative properties of the “greatest conceivable island” proposed by Guanilo and the qualitative properties that apply to a greatest conceivable being. In other words, since a greatest conceivable island is a tangible thing its possible to imagine something larger or grander, while the power of a greatest conceivable being has maximums that cannot be exceeded (Himma).
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.
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
During his lifespan, ST. Anselm’s life he wrote a very famous argument, which is known as the Ontological Argument of Anselm.