Analysis Of Anselm For The Existence Of God

1374 Words3 Pages

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.

Open Document