From all those proofs, he got his finally answer that God has to exist. For the first precondition, Anselm first claimed that things can exist in the mind or both in mind and reality. Anselm thought that the greatest thing that can be conceived w... ... middle of paper ... ...s own rule that “nothing greater than God can be conceived” and used this assumption to make everyone believe that God exists. In conclusion, Anselm’s ontological argument is based on the concept analyze instead of the fact or experience. He uses the logical analysis for the concept of God, then he uses the concept of the God which he gives to people as the start point to prove God exists.
However, if you think about things that don't exist it is not as good. The things that exist are real and God's creation, and to understand this existance is even better. God is one who always exists and makes existence possible. In Anselm's argument he states God " of all things exist to the highest degree"(p. 860). He is saying God is the supreme being and is treated as a primary idea.
That God is “that then which nothing greater can be conceived” (Id quo nihil mauis potest), meaning that it is impossible for there to be a more perfect being. This leads to the first two premises. Firstly, “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” and secondly, “Something that exists in reality (in re) is bound to be greater than something that exists in the imagination (in intellectu). This leads to the conclusion, that as God is “the greatest conceivable thing”…it is only logical that God exists “both in reality and thought”. Anselm’s essential claim was that existence was a “predicate of God” which means a quality of God’s nature.
If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God. Descartes views God in a similar way to St. Anselm. Descartes sees God as the perfectbeing while St. Anselm describes God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.” In Descartes “the Argument from Perfection” he reasons that if existence is one of the perfections and God has all the perfections, then God must exist. Along with these arguments others in the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic communities have similar views. Cosmological arguments are... ... middle of paper ... ... one time was not in existence, it has parts that were put together to form the watch, each one of those parts had to be formed and then they were all fit together in harmony to form the watch by the watchmaker.
For if there were, then it would be possible to use the same argument to prove that there are an infinite number of gods. Anselm would attack this argument at premise two. Because if God were the greatest that could be conceived, then it would be impossible to conceive of anything greater. Since two gods is greater that one God, then even if it was impossible to conceive of two gods, it would be no greater than conceiving of one God. I will actually agree with Anselm on this argument, given his definition of God.
How can anyone rationally conclude that there is a God from the simple statement that a first cause is necessary for the existence of anything? A first cause does not prove God, it only assumes that there is a God, at best. Could one not put matter in the place of God in St. Aquinas’s argument and still assume there is a first efficient cause? The theory that matter “is”, is just as plausible as the theory that God “is”. Matter is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning nor end.
This definition is necessary in order to agree with Anselm’s premise that there exists things in reality which are greater than things that only reside in the understanding. Also, Anselm does not discuss what a perfect being is. He claims that God cannot be perfect if He exists only in the understanding, but what exactly does being perfect mean? Moreover, Anselm would then need to be able to provide evidence of how God would meet this description. Finally, Descartes proof resonates with me more because he acknowledges that humans are imperfect.
Thus, Anselm tends to base his argument on the definitions and terminology used. Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is "that than which none greater can be conceived". Firstly, it must be emphasised that Anselm’s definition does not limit God to being the "greatest" but makes it known that nothing greater can be thought than God himself. Therefore, God should not in any way be linked to terms such as ‘omnipotent’ as terminology such as this limit him to what he really is. With this definition, he attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality.
Throughout this proof, Descartes is trying to use God’s existence as a way of affirming that which he clearly and distinctly perceives. However, he is also trying to prove God’s existence by claiming that the idea of God is a clear and distinct perception. Without inquiring into the existence of God, “it appears I am never capable of being completely ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat God too exists" (Descartes, 34). Descartes proof of the existence of God is derived from his establishment that something cannot come from nothing. Because God is a perfect being, the idea of God can be found from exploring the different notions of ideas.
Through a priori knowledge and reason, they have drawn the conclusion that God exists. The fundamental part of the Ontological Argument is that, we are able to prove God’s existence because we are able to believe it so. The Ontological Argument does not look at designs in the physical universe, but at our mind’s logic that had led to the belief that God exists in reality. “God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived” – God is greater than anything that exists in both reality and thought.