In the 11th century St. Anselm of Canterbury wrote the Prosologion, where he formulated the ontological argument of God’s existence. The beginning of his argument begins with propositions that do not rely on experience to believe that God’s existence is tangible. Furthermore, throughout Anselm’s argument he portrays logical and rational statements to show strong evidence of God’s existence (Oppy, par. 2). The main focus of this ontological argument is to counter the fool’s belief that there is no God, in this case the fool being Gaunilo. Guanilo was a monk of France and was one of many who criticized Anselm’s ontological argument. In Gaunilo’s argument he modeled that just like conceiving about God it should also be possible to conceive of …show more content…
Anselm’s argument he starts by stating the concept of a “being than which no greater can be conceived”. This statement is one of the strategies Anselm uses to defend the existence of God. St. Anselm has confidence that if individuals understand the terminology of God and existence and also can understand what it means to speak of him, they must then come to the conclusion that he is of existence (Halsall, par. 14). This statement then leads everyone to believe that God definitely exists in our understanding as well as the atheist mind. The preposition that a being existing in reality is far greater than solely in the mind, assists Anselm’s argument of proving God’s existence. He believes that if God exists in reality then that would contradict the statement of a “being than which no greater can be conceived” because that would mean something greater could be conceived (Halsall, par 13). Anselm’s argument then looks something like this, God is greater than which nothing greater could be conceived from this statement there then can be nothing greater imagined. So if God in fact did not exist then there could be something greater conceived but there is not, therefore God does exist (Oppy, par. …show more content…
First off, all individuals have a different idea of their perfect island. In addition, individuals could continuously ask for more of what is desired in their minds because there is an endless number of resources available. For example, if someone desired to have more fruit or birds on their perfect island they could always continue to get more of it. When Gaunilo compares this to God he did not take into consideration the various powers that God grants. When Anselm addresses God to be the greatest conceivable being he is referring to Gods genuine features that are offered (Himma, par. 12). God has the power to, sustain all possible of knowledge in the world (omniscience), maintain pure goodness in addition to moral perfection (omnibenevolece), and also have an infinite amount of power (omnipotent). In this sense one cannot ask anything greater than that of God due to the fact that he can offer anything that the mind can imagine (Halsall, par. 7). Furthermore, Mulla Sadra an Islamic philosopher assists Anselm to defeat the fool’s objection. Sadra placed the argument of the righteous to prove the existence of God and to prove that he is indeed necessary. Sadra’s argument begins with the fact that there is existence, and existence is a perfection that is above of any perfection that may be conceived. There is only one singular being of perfection that
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.
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.
St. Thomas Aquinas presents five arguments to demonstrate the existence of God. However, this paper focuses on the fifth argument. The fifth argument is regarded as the Teleological Argument and states that things that lack intelligence act for some end or purpose. While the fifth argument satisfies God’s existence for Aquinas, some contemporary readers would argue that Aquinas neglects the laws of physics. Others argue that Aquinas allows a loophole in his argument so that the Catholic conception of God is not the only intelligent designer.
Anselm further adds that if this idea could exist not only in his undestanding but also in reality then that would be greater. Futhermore we cannot conceive of God as not existing, becasue that would be less greater than a being which necessarily exists. In addition to this anselm states that God cannot be thought of as non-existent because we cannot conceive of him a beginning or an end. Gaunilo however criticises and objects to Anselms argument that the existece of God can be proved a priori.
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.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
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.
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).
The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even atheist had a definition for God even just to disregard his existence; hence God exists in the mind. Anselm said this is so because that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists purely in the mind.
The three readings that form the basis of this essay all deal with the existence
God can be defined as a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions (1). There are many people that do not believe in any religion. People who do not believe in a religion have no reason for believing in a God. People who do not believe in a God and argue against the existence of God are proving something that is completely false. There is a God for numerous reasons.
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.
In this paper I will be exploring two arguments on the topic of the existence of God. In particular, I will focus on Saint Thomas Aquinas’s efficient causation argument for God’s existence and an objection to it from Bertrand Russell. After an analysis of Aquinas’s argument and a presentation of Russell’s objection, I will show how Russell’s objection fails.
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