St. Anselm Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
There are various types of ontological arguments for the existence of God. The ontological argument was first formulate Descartes. Some contend, however, that there can be no dialectically effective ontological argument. In other words, the belief in God cannot, according to many, be established as reasonable. Never-the-less, arguments attempting to disprove the existence of God cannot be proved reasonable either. Because of this standoff, it is sometimes contended that ontological arguments are in fact completely worthless in their attempts to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Despite this criticism, however, these arguments are of considerable
…show more content…
Kant contended that Anselm had simply defined God into existence. Kant argues, for example, that:
“’Being’ is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing or of certain determinations, as existing in themselves” (Pojman 72).
Kant also argues that Anselm treats the concepts of “existence” and “being” as first order predicates (Pojman 73). Contentions such as this are only understandable upon closer examination of Anselm’s argument. Indeed, Anselm’s argument for the existence of God devotes considerable attention to definitions. In part, it explores the relevance and connotations of the term “existence”. Anselm’s argument presents the philosophical problem of whether:
“existence is a property and whether the notion of necessary existence is intelligible” (Pojman 70).
By far the most important aspect of Anselm’s argument, however, is its religious significance (Pojman 70). Anselm’s argument distinguishes itself from other traditional arguments in that it clearly delineates the properties which distinguish God, i.e. properties such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence (Pojman 70). To Anselm, just as Psalms 14:1 warns, ignoring the proof of God’s existence is an error which only a fool would make (Pojman
…show more content…
In addition to Kant, Gaunilo was one of the staunchest critics of Anselm’s argument about the existence of God. Gaunilo lived during the same time period as Anselm and was one of the fist to launch objections to the argument. Gaunilo saw Anselm’s argument as little more than a magic trick which relied on slight of hand to fool the audience. He uses the example of an enticing island, the Isle of the Blest, to disprove Anselm’s argument. Instead of a greatest possible being Gaunilo inserts the concept of the island into Anselm’s argument. He points out that we can indeed conceive of this island as not existing and therefore Anselm’s argument is invalid. Other philosophers, however, disagree with Guanilo’s criticism. Pojman (72), for example, points out that while we can progressively conceive of a more and more wonderful island the properties of God have an “intrinsic maximum”. God’s properties are not like islands or even like numbers for which you could always conceive of a larger for numbers are infinite. Pojman’s (72) clarification that God’s properties are more like perfect knowledge lend even more weight to the argument that indeed God does exist.
I believe in the existence of God. I am a theist and do not need any extra proof then I already have. I personally think Anselm’s argument is a strong one. Of course, Anselm’s argument will problaby not convince an atheist. Anselm’s argument has strengthened
Saint Thomas of Aquainas may have been one of the greatest thinkers who attempted to bridge the proverbial gap between faith and reason. His Sacred Doctrine which was the initial part of his Summa Theologica was the basis for his conclusion about the existence of God. Aquinas tended to align his beliefs close with Aristotle's supposition that there must be an eternal and imputrescible creator. In comparison, Anselm's impressions were influenced largely by Plato. In his text Proslogion he outlined his Ontological argument that regarding the existence of God. It was simply that God was the ultimate and most perfect being conceivable, and that his state of existing is greater than not existing therefore god, being perfect in every way, must exist. This is where their paths divide, and although they essentially reach the same determination they paint the picture quite differently.
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”,
8- McDermid, Douglas. "God's Existence." PHIL 1000H-B Lecture 9. Trent University, Peterborough. 21 Nov. 2013. Lecture.
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...
St Anselm’s argument was from a theistic stance, he had produced the Ontological Argument in a time period where the existence of God was a given. It was very rare to find atheists, therefore it may seem that the Ontological argument was used to convert atheists, it was a response to Psalms 14 and 15 which begins as “The Fool says to himself “there is no God”. However, the argument is actually from a “faith seeking understanding” view and only wants to get closer to understanding the nature of God.
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’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.
Therefore, we have to accord that God is additionally vital, as well as existent in reality, because to contemplate or else involves a contradiction. The reason for people being able to repudiate the attendance of God is due to them knowing the meaning of the word God, not the attendance of God. In this paper, I have argued that Anselm’s ontological argument is reliant on Anselm’s confidential faith in God, Anselm by now trusts in God, and the argument is plain and endeavors to change Anselm’s faith into a kind of intellectual understanding.
If God did not exist, he would not be the greatest being imaginable. He is the greatest thing imaginable. Therefore, he does exist. From this argument, God’s existence is viewed. as necessary (Ayer. A. J. 1973).
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.
Another way that St. Anselm's argument differs from other arguments is that it requires that you look at a definition of the concept of God. As Sober says, the definition of an object does not, in itself, prove its existence. Some examples he gives are unicorns and golden...
Some kinds of utterances which have an indicative grammatical form seem, for different reasons, to be unable to say something true of the world. Logical contradictions are only the prime example of something the author baptizes impossible descriptions. So-called performative contradictions (e.g., "I do not exist") make up another kind, but there are at least two more such kinds: negating affirmations and performatives which cannot be explained within the philosophy of language. Only philosophical anthropology can explain their feature of "impossibleness," and a distinction between unreflective and reflective consciousness is central to the explanation. Particularly important here is G. H. Mead's distinction between two aspects of the self: the "I" and the "me." Each of the four kinds of impossible descriptions distinguished has its own contrary opposite. These are, in turn, logical tautologies, performative tautologies, affirming negations, and omissive performatives. The last three types as types have not received the philosophical recognition that they deserve. All four fit a general characterization which is given as a definition of the concept of superfluous description.
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.
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.
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