Anselm’s ontological argument was presented in chapter two of Anselm’s Proslogion. The actual argument is as follow: (1) If God exists only in understanding, then we can think of a being greater than God. (2) We can’t think of a being greater than God. (3) Therefore not the case that God only exists in the understanding. (4) Either God exists in reality or God exists in the understanding. (5) Therefore God exist in reality (conclusion). To put this argument in conclusion argument form it would look like this:
1. If P then Q
2. Not Q
3. Not P
4. R or P
5. Therefore R
This argument is in modus tollen form, so since it is modus tollen it is valid.
To understand this argument, you must understand some of the main terms and axioms related to this argument. The first terms I feel that must be defined to understand this argument is God. God by definition means the being that which nothing is greater can be thought of. God is the omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent. By definition, nothing can be imagined as being greater than God. The next important phrase need to be understood is what it means to exist in the understanding. What this mean is that if someone understands a concept then that person has an understanding for that idea. This can be seen as if someone understands the concept of God, which is that nothing greater than God can be conceived, than that concept exits in that persons understanding. Another important thing to know is that existing in reality is greater then existing in only the understanding. This comes from Anselm’s ontological principle. In this principle it states if X and Y are alike in all respects except that X exists in reality and Y only exists in the understanding, then X is greater than Y.
...
... middle of paper ...
...sented my Anslem. I believe it because o my personal beliefs and what I was taught as a child. So I do feel God exits in reality and that is one thing that makes him perfect. This is an issue that anyone can favor or against because it does deal with religion and god, and there is no way to really prove this. IT all depends on one person’s views and what they feel God is. Is he the best, that nothing can be better then him etc.? I don’t agree with the objection. I do feel that if something exist it is better then only an understating, like a painting. Before an artist draws a picture he or she has an imagine of it in his or her mind. Then he or she actually draws it so it now exists. I think that people would feel that the actually painting is better than just having the understanding of the concept of that image. So I think that existence is a perfection.
The first argument comes from knowledge and extension. From knowledge, he says if he clearly and distinctly understand one thing as distinct from another then he is certain that he exists as a thinking thing but he still isn 't sure about the existence of his body. Therefore, he is a thinking thing and nothing else. From extension, he is a thing that thinks and not an extended thing but he has a distinct idea of body as an extended thing, therefore his mind is distinct from his body. The second argument he makes is that material objects exist. He can understand himself without imagination and sense, but he cannot understand imagination and sense without attributing them to a thing that thinks. Movement is also a power of mine but movement is a power only of extended things. This leads him to the conclusion that although he is essentially a thinking thing, he is not only a thinking thing. He also has an extended body that we are certain of. We not only have the power of passive sense but an active sense too. This active sensing does not require intellect and comes to us against our will. Therefore, it is either God or and external extended body and since God is no deceiver, material objects
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”,
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.
stronger than those saying it can be. The definition of God for which is being argued is the Christian God who has the qualities of being. perfect and who created the universe. The ontological argument follows that God is perfect and no greater. being is imaginable.
To defend the lord’s existence, he begins by presenting the argument that God is “something that than which nothing greater can be though” (432). This is apparent as God trumps all things that exist in this world as He is the creator therefore, the greatest of all. Certainly, if He is greater than what can be thought, then for the same reason He must
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...
Many philosophers, including Elliott Sober, have criticized Anselm for his reply to Gaunilo, as well as Gaunilo's attempt to show the Ontological Argument is not deductively valid. Gaunilo says that there must be something wrong with the argument, but he does not point out where the mistake is. It is necessary to do so because Anselm's argument does look valid. Indeed, Anselm says that the Ontological Argument is deductively valid because of the difference between God and an island. "This seems implausible, since deductive validity doesn't depend on an argument's subject matter, only on its form, and the two arguments have the same logical form" (87).
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.
The Design Argument For The Existence Of God This argument is also called the teleological argument, it argues that the universe did not come around by mere chance, but some one or something designed it. This thing was God. This argument is a prosteriori because the observation of the natural world is taken into the mind to conclude that there is a designer. The belief that the universe was designed by God was triggered by things like the four seasons; summer, spring, autumn and winter, that change through the year.
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.
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 state, “And assuredly, that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater.” By stating this he is trying to say that God is something than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist only in the understanding. If God existed only in the understanding, we could conceive something greater which exists in the understanding and in reality as well. If this holds true then it is impossible for us to conceive of something greater than God because God is defined as something greater than what can be conceived. Things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist only in our minds. Things that exist in the mind as ideas are secondary to things that actually exist in reality. If God only exist in the mind as a concept and not in reality, then the definition of God as being the greatest thing would not hold true. In order for this definition to be true God must also exist in reality. So if you are thinking of God, then he must exist in reality. If you aren’t, then you are not thinking of
Perfection in this sense is a limit. Like how infinity is said to be the limit to how high numbers can go, perfect can be said to be the limit of how great conscientious creatures can be. So great a standard is perfection, that the only things known to be truly perfect are gods, and gods can’t even be confirmed to be real. It could even be said that people can only understand perfection as a standard because we have gods to use as landmarks. Gods are relative to perfection because they are perfection