Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
st. anselm's ontological argument
How Christianity influenced science
st. anselm's ontological argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: st. anselm's ontological argument
St. Anselm
Not every great writer can be correct in what he or she is saying. This is the idea that Gaunilo had in mind when he wrote his criticism to St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument which states that if something greater than anything else that could be thought of is conceived in the understanding then it must exist. Gaunilo says it is foolish to believe in the existence of something just because it is understood. He says there must be some kind of other explanation. In this paper, I will try to explain both Anselm’s theory and Gaunilo’s argument by first breaking each of them down in simpler terms. I will attempt to show what Gaunilo is trying to discredit with his objection.
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?
If nothing greater than God can be conceived in anyone’s understanding, God is said to be humanly perfect. Since to be perfect, in part, is to exist; something that does not exist cannot be perf...
... middle of paper ...
...n the existence of God does not mean you doubt that He really does exist. If you disagree with his method, like Gaunilo, you simply want more accurate evidence to support the idea. God, like your island or toy, is not just there because you wished it to be or because it would be better and more perfect if these things did exist. If you agree with his method, you understand that you do not always have to touch everything you conceive of in your mind. Things in life exist for a reason. The question remains: whose reason are you going to believe?
Bibliography:
Bibliography
· Gaunilo. “Gaunilo’s Criticism.” Philosophy The Quest for Truth Louis P. Pojman ed.: Wadsworth Publishing Company. USA. 1999: 70.
· St. Anselm. “St. Anselm’s Presentation.” Philosophy The Quest for Truth Louis P. Pojman ed.: Wadsworth Publishing Company. USA. 1999: 68-69.
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...
To begin, Anselm’s ontological proof functions from the essence of God to God’s existence. The argument
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.
Anselm’s classical ontological argument is criticized precisely for its attempt to define God into existence. The argument is deductive and its form known as reduction ad absurdum. “That is, it begins with a supposition S (suppose that the greatest conceivable being exist in the mind alone) that is contradictory to what one desires to prove” (Pojman 41). In other words, the argument attempts to show a contradiction or absurdity in the opposite view in order to claim his own view is correct.
In this paper, I have argued that Anselm’s ontological argument is reliant on Anselm’s confidential faith in God, Anselm by now trust in God, and the argument is plainly and endeavor to change Anselm’s faith into a kind of intellectual understanding.
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.
In Descartes’ second meditation, he offers up an argument for Defective Nature Doubt that brings forth the idea that we can’t be certain of anything we perceive being actual and real (153). Descartes thinks that there is a possibility that we are constantly being deceived due to the fact that we don’t know, with perfect certainty, know where our ideas originate from (154). He tries to describe a method in order to dispel this Defective Nature Doubt by giving an argument for the existence of God. I think that the argument he gives for the existence of God is valid, yet I find it to be unsound due to the fact that a few of his premises are can easily be debated. In order to express this opinion, I will first provide explanations of the premises and conclusions of the argument, and then I will critique the premises that I find to be inadequate in order to support my opinion that Descartes’ argument is valid but unsound.
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 "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely illogical in itself, is the center of Anselm's illogical argument, and something that I will try to explain. First, we must define "that which we can conceive of nothing." What can this possibly mean? It seems that this is the limit of what we can conceive. What this is, I cannot say because it is inconceivable. Anselm claims that what is beyond this is God. He is telling us that God is the highest possible being. This is the sum of his argument. What I want to know is how we can conceive the existence of something that is beyond all that is conceivable. While there are obvious problems with his logic, Anselm firmly believes that God is the greatest of all beings.
It is controversial if existence is a general class that can be categorized into existence in the mind and existence in reality or if there are multiple levels of existence. It is also controversial that there are only two categories of existence, if at all it can be categorized. Hence, for a supreme being, for which, as suggested by Thomas Aquinas, it is not very clear whether humans can perceive all of its qualities, a conclusion that God does not solely exists in the mind, should not lead to a conclusion that it exists in
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).
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 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 the following I intend to prove that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that God exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly why ‘The Ontological Argument’ is unsatisfactory.
In Anselm’s “Proslogion” and Descartes’ “ Meditations on First Philosophy,” Anselm and Descartes offer their own answers to one of the most important questions in life, which is whether God exists. I will point out similarities and differences in the two arguments, and I will argue why Descartes ‘proof’ is more persuasive.