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
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...
... 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 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.
Anselm supported the ontological argument because he wanted to clarify that God exists. Deductive and employing priori reasoning is what defines the ontological argument. It begins a statement that is understood to be correct merely be meaning and instituting a proper conclusion for that statement. By employing deductive reasoning it permits Anselm to display what the meaning means. In this paper I will argue that Anselm’s ontological argument does depend on Anselm’s confidential faith in God.
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.
(1) The ontological argument was first stated by Anselm in the Proslogium, Anselm defines God as a being related to whom nothing superior can be conceived. He inquires on the possible existence of such a being in ours mind only, that is , as an object of thought. The answer is negative, for such a being would be one related to whom a superior could be conceived. The ontological argument presented by Descartes in the fifth Meditation is essentially a modern version of Anselm's argument.
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).
Those who support the ontological argument will say the statement "God exists" is analytically true. This means that once we understand the meaning of the word "God" we see that He must exist by definition. Anselm said God's existence was proved by analyzing wha... ... middle of paper ... ...
In his fourth argument, Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas uses five proofs to argue for God’s existence. A few follow the same basic logic: without a cause, there can be no effect. He calls the cause God and believes the effect is the world’s existence. The last two discuss what necessarily exists in the world, which we do not already know. These things he also calls God.
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.
Being a devout Christian, Thomas Aquinas naturally believed in God, but he wanted to prove God's existence to those who could not accept things on faith alone. As a result he made five proofs, which he claims, prove the existence of God. With each proof there is always a beginning, a starting point, Aquinas claims it must be God that is the beginning of each. The first proof does not do complete justice to Aquinas’s claim that God exist, while the fifth proof could be used alone to prove Gods existence.
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.