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. In part seven of the Proslogion, Anselm wonders whether …show more content…
Anselm explains this through the concept that if God was involved in human life and affairs then this would take away his all-powerfulness and omnipotence because his true power comes from the possibility of doing anything and making a decision goes against this. The true power that God has makes him unable to interfere in human affairs as the amount of other decisions and choices that are influenced by this one action takes power from him. Anselm shows this through the analogy that if a man is sitting we talk of him as he is doing the action, but for talking of God, it would be easier to think of it as he isn’t doing any other action other than sitting (Anselm 73). Anselm’s thought that having the power to do something rather than actually doing an action is greater and this leads to him re-establishing the thought of God’s omnipotence through this. As Anselm says, because of God’s ability to do an action that is always to his benefit and because he can not be impotent against anything, this reaffirms his all-powerfulness. God doing an impotent action is self-contradictory because he is the maximum and all-knowing, so he will never do this because it would take power away from Him and make him have the desire to do what is unacceptable of God, which is an action that goes against God himself. Anselm describes this power that is taken away from God if he does a impotent action as “adversity and perversity”, which just means anything that goes against God or is self-harming to Him (Anselm 74). His inaction is true omnipotence because he can, “do nothing through impotence and nothing can have power against You.”(Anselm 74) God’s inaction is one of the main reasons why he is omnipotent according to Anselm, and if he influences human life or anything then he is taking away alternate possibilities which make him less
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
... 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.
Descartes's fifth Meditation argument for God's existence relies on an untenable notion that existence is a perfection and that it can be predicated of God. I shall first explain what Descartes's argument for God's existence is, and then present his argument in propositional form. I will then attempt to support the argument that existence is neither a perfection nor a predicate of God.
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.
Even without God reaching out specifically for us, nature and the world around us can prove to show man God’s ultimate power and authority. God created humans as the superior being on earth, therefore we have the ability to critically
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist. So there is no loving and powerful God. However, if there is a God then he is not all loving and powerful. Daniel Howard-Snyder states in his article “God, Evil, And Suffering,”: “We would have to say God lacks power and knowledge to such an extent that He can 't prevent evil. And there lies the trouble. For how could God have enough power and knowledge to create and sustain the physical universe if He can 't even prevent evil? How could He be the providential governor of the world if He is unable to do what even we frequently do, namely prevent evil?” (5). This statement argues that God is not all powerful because he is unable to prevent evil in the world. Daniel Howard-Snyder then argues that: “Would a perfectly good being always prevent evil as far as he can? Suppose he had a reason to permit evil, a reason that was compatible with his never doing wrong and his being perfect in love, what I 'll call a justifying reason. For example, suppose that if he prevented evil completely, then we would miss out on a greater good, a good whose goodness was so great that it far surpassed the badness of evil. In that case, he might not prevent evil as far as he can, for he would have a justifying reason to permit it” (5). Even if God had a reason to allow evil, he who is all loving and powerful would want the least amount of people to suffer and feel pain. Since God knows
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 order to understand God’s omniscience, we must distinguish the important difference between human foreknowledge and divine foreknowledge, which the former is the contingent true, and the latter is the necessary true. Human beliefs are contingent true, because it could happen to be true and it could also have been false. Divine beliefs are necessary truth, by denying it, it will create a contradiction. Therefore, as logic dictates, my first proposition is if one believes in God, then no human action will be voluntary. However, noted that God is all-knowing, but it doesn’t mean God is all-controlling. For the sake of argument in a metaphysical sense, what if there were more than just one rea...
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...
To understand Gaunilo’s objection to Anselm’s argument of God’s existence it is important to first understand Anselm’s argument. Anselm contends that the existence of God is shown easily in the very definition of God. He defines God in The Longman Standard History of Philosophy as the greatest conceivable being, “a greater than which cannot be conceived” (p. 309). Anselm continues with the argument that “existence is greater than nonexistence” (p.309) and if God is the “greatest” than he must exist. With this statement Anselm says that if you do not believe that God exists, you are saying that “a being that cannot be conceived as anything other than existing does not exist” (p.309) which is self-contradictory. With this definition, according
In the construction of the Large Hardon Collider, physicists seek and hope to unlock the mysteries of the universe by analyzing the attributes of the most miniscule particles known to man. In the same way, theologians have argued back and forth over the course of human history with regards to the divine attributes of God, seeking and hoping to unlock the mysteries of the metaphysical universe. Although these many attributes, for example omnipresence, could be debated and dissected ad nauseum, it is within the scope of this research paper to focus but on one of them. Of these many divine attributes of God, nothing strikes me as more intriguing than that of God’s omnipotence. It is intriguing to me because the exploration of this subject not only promises an exhilarating exercise in the human faculties of logic, it also offers an explanation into the practical, such as that of the existence of evil, which we live amidst every day. So with both of these elements in hand, I am going to take on the task of digging deeper into the divine attribute of omnipotence in hopes of revealing more of the glory of God, and simultaneously bringing greater humility to the human thinker. In order to gain a better understanding on the subject of divine omnipotence, I am going to analyze four aspects of it. First, I am going to build a working definition of what we mean when we say that God is omnipotent. Second, I am going to discuss the relationship between divine omnipotence and logic. Third, I am going to discuss the relationship between God’s omnipotence and God’s timelessness. Last, I am going to analyze God’s omnipotence in relation to the existence of evil in the world. Through the analysis of these four topics in relation to om...
During Medieval Philosophy times, it was a common thing to label God, or at least attempt to put a definition to him. There are several arguments over God’s existence or non-existence and it continues to be debated in recent times. John Scotus Eriugena and Saint Anselm were not exceptions to the philosophies of the time. Although they had two different approaches in their definitions there is no mistaking their ultimate goal of seeking a God definition.
The concept of omnipotence seems to reign prominent among most religions, specifically among their myths articulating the origin and the inevitable destruction of our universe. Omnipotence, meaning all-powerful/perfect and predictably all good, produces many contradictions and questions merely by definition. The prospect of a life form being omnipotent is impossible. For the omnipotent being would inexorably be the creator and destroyer of all things; however, a perfect (omnipotent) being needs not to create anything else, for it is perfectly harmonious in its state, let alone creating an imperfect universe necessary for destruction.