God’s Existence: St. Anselm’s Ontology vs. St. Aquinas’s Cosmology
St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109) offered quite fascinating and puzzling argument for God’s existence in “Proslogion” – a sample of ontological argument, i.e. the one that is based solely on concepts and logical links and relations, but not on someone’s real experience or knowledge.
In other words, his argument consists of a priori statements based only on reason and logic. It is similar to saying “if you spend at least 3 days for writing this assignment, then you spent for writing it more than 2 days”. So, Anselm demonstrates us a string of suppositions and premises.
At first he states that God is “something than which nothing greater can be thought” or in other words, by definition, the greatest being one can only imagine.
…show more content…
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) as one of medieval theology scholars and famous thinkers who didn’t accept Anselm’s way of thinking. He offered his own alternative – well-known cosmological argument – and summarized it in detail in his “Summa Theologia” or “Treatise on God”. He states that existence of God can be confirmed without doubt in five ways or by five proofs. The first proof or the theory of the “unmoved mover” seems to be the most obvious, compelling and clearly stated confirmation of God’s existence.
Certain things in our world are in constant motion (or sustaining constant changes), Aquinas assumes. And naturally the things or objects that are currently in motion are put in this motion by other objects that are in motion as well. The mentioned other objects had to be put in motion by some other things or objects that preceded them and so on. Whatever is moved must be moved by something else. However, such situation cannot go to infinity, Aquinas states, as there must be the very first mover, the unmoved one, or the source of all motion or changes in the world. And this very first original mover is to be
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...
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”,
Aquinas says there are five ways to prove that God exists and one of them is through efficient causation. He starts with the premise that every effect we observe must have been caused by something else. This can be compared to the effect of a particular tree being caused by the planting of a particular seed that grew into that tree. Second, nothing that we observe could have caused itself. A particular tree could not have produced the particular seed that later grew into that tree. The existence of something before itself is contradictory and impossible. He then goes on to explain that if nothing caused itself then it must have been caused by something else that was also caused by something else and so on. If we continue to go up the chain of causes, however, it would seem that the chain of causes goes back to infinity.
Anselm begins by supposing that we, as functional human beings, can understand his definition of God. As Anselm himself puts it, even “when the fool [atheist] hears the words ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’, he understands what he hears.” This premise is intended to demonstrate the fact that when we conceptualize something (e.g. God), the thing that we are conceptualising exists in our underst...
It is my view that God exists, and I think that Aquinas’ first two ways presents a
A contemporary reader would argue that Aquinas neglects that the laws of physics and nature can exist beyond a creator. Even though the world is complex, a creator does not necessarily have to exist. For example, in Aquinas’ example in the text, the archer applied force in order move the arrow. This would follow Newton’s laws of motion and these principles are things that people can not violate because they are always true. Therefore, the intelligent being himself moved the arrow, but that the law of physics was also involved to get the arrow to its end. Another problem is in Aquinas statement that things “reach their goal by purpose, not by chance” (Aquinas 26). However, how do we know that the world does not have randomness or chance? Actually, there are some examples in science that debunks Aquinas’ statement. For example, Richard Dawkins believed that random mutations in species allows for variation and a bigger genetic pool in support of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Lastly, Aquinas claims that the designer has to be God because He is an uncaused cause. Even if people accepted this, Aquinas does not substantiate why it must be the case that the Catholic conception of the one and only true God is the only intelligent designer of all natural things. Aquinas leaves room for polytheism to exist, and hence more than one intelligent designer can move material things. If this is the
In the first part, Aquinas states that the existence of god is not self-evident, meaning that reason alone without appealing to faith can give a good set of reasons to believe. To support this claim, Aquinas refers to “The Argument of Motion”, proposing that:
Aquinas believes that is it reasonable to believe that something that we cannot demonstrate, but not anything only certain things. Aquinas’ arguments rely heavily on Aristotle, and unlike Anselm another philosopher who argued for the existence of God; Aquinas’ arguments are based on experience. Aquinas put together five different ways that are five separate arguments. This essay is going to go in depth about the second way (argument) that is the argument from efficient causality (cosmological argument) and Paul Edward’s objection against it.
One of St. Anselm’s theological topics deals with the Ontological Argument in which discusses the idea of existence. He gives a definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” (69). His idea being that God is the ultimate being or “the greatest possible being” (68). He says there is nothing anyone can possibly imagine that could be better than Him. This argument gives God the highest human qualities possible. He is omnipotent as well as omniscient. Anselm suggests that there is no one or nothing in this world that is greater than God is (69). This perfection that God possesses leads into the fact that He must exist. He is trying to create the idea that God exists and nothing can be better than he can be. However, one must ask where Anselm gets his proof. What evidence does he have to back up his argument?
While I do agree with some of Aquinas’ claims. Such as the idea that nothing comes from nothing. I believe something has to happen to become. It could be the efficient cause, causing the world to start. Although still having the question what made such a cause to effect everything in the
One of Aquinas’s proofs is based on the idea of a first mover and another is based on the idea that intelligence is necessary to direct non-intelligent objects. St. Thomas Aquinas' first argument tries to prove that there must be a first mover. He calls this first mover God. He proves this by saying that whatever is in motion must have been put in motion by something else. He then defines one type of motion as the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, and says that nothing can make this movement except by something that is already in actuality in the same respect as the first object is in potentiality. He goes on to say that no thing can be both actual and potential in respect to the same aspect and, thus, that nothing can be both moved and mover. In this, he means that nothing can move itself. Therefore, if something is in motion, it must have been put in motion by something else, which must have been put in motion by yet another thing, and so on. However, this cannot go on to infinity, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains, because there would never have been a fist mover and, thus, no subsequent movers. This leads to the conclusion that there is a first mover, and this first mover is what is called 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.
Anselm developed two different versions of his ontological argument, in the classical version of his argument he says
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