In this passage, Anselm is speaking to God. He is speaking to God to try to understand that he exists, as we think God does, and that God is what we believe God to be. Anselm wants to explain what God is and if God is actually, a being than which nothing greater can be thought. To help explain this, he uses an example of a fool who believe that there is no God; the fool believes this until he hears what Anselm has to say to help explain his point. The passage also helps us to get an understanding about what Anselm means when he and other writers write about God.…
Anselm put forward his ideas about the existence of God through his book, the Proslogion. He started by simply giving the word ‘God’ a definition, and then explaining that to not believe in God was absurd. The Proslogion consisted of two main parts. In Proslogion 1, Anselm explained God as being…
Anselm’s ontological argument is an a priori proof of God’s existence. Anselm starts with an idea that depends on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists. His aim is to refute “the fool who says in his heart there is no God” (Psalms 14:1) this is showing that the ‘fool’ has important features which are; he understands the claim that God exists and he does not believe God exists. Anselm said “an atheist cannot consistently be an atheist”, they want to challenge that God does not exist but by having an understanding concept of God, then he must exist. Anselm had a clear understanding of an all knowing, all powerful and an all loving God, thus believing God exists.…
explanation that God necessarily exists. Anselm's goal is to prove to the "fool" that God has to…
Anselm is not trying to say that whatever one can think of exist because, everyone can think of something that does not exist. Neither is he trying to saying believing in something without any doubt makes it exist. Finally Anselm might believe in God, he is not trying to convince us that God exist but rather he is trying to show us that once one understands or grasp the concept of who or what God, then based on logic it follows that God has to exist. Anselm ontological argument follows that if one makes an assumption and can show things that follow from that assumption lead to contradiction, then the initial assumption is rejected and conclude the opposite…
Anselm’s argument did lead to objections as most do. The first was that of a Monk Named Gaunilo, who argued against Anselm’s ontological Argument with the use of the concept of a perfect island. Gaunilo argued that concept of a perfect island does not prove that the existence of an island. In this case that perfection does not imply ‘existence’. Gaunilo claims that if the word God was replaced with the words perfect island, then Anselm’s ontological argument would not conclude that the perfect island exists. The fact Gaunilo was trying to bring across that a valid argument can never have true premises and a false conclusion, as the conclusion has to follow logically from the premises. Constructing a similar argument in which the conclusion is false shows that Anselm’s argument is flawed. Gaulino’s argument follows the basic form as such:…
In Saint Anselm and Gaunilo’s “The Ontological Argument”, Anselm believes that God is the greatest of all conceivable things and nothing else can be ....…
Anselm’s second argument states that it is logically necessary for God to exist. Anselm states that god is the greatest conceivable being, so it would be less great to imagine him not existing than to imagine him existing.…
Anselm presented his argument in the second and third chapters of Proslogian. In chapter 2, Anselm says that God being than which none greater can be imagined is a conceptual truth. He acknowledged that a being that is present in both mind and reality is much greater than a being that exists only in the mind. Hence, if God only exists as an idea in the mind, we can think of something that is greater than God. We can think of the greatest possible being that does exist. This is a contradiction Anselm says. He says that we cannot think of something that is greater than God, for he is the greatest being of all. With this deductive reasoning, Anselm believes God is existent. In Chapter 3, he supports his topic in a different view. He says that a being that exists in reality is greater than a being that doesn’t exist in reality. Anselm states that by definition, “if God exists as an idea in the mind but not in reality, something greater is there.” Again he says that this is impossible. If God exists as an idea in the mind, God exists in reality. Since God exist in the mind, god exists in…
The definition seems to be different from most definitions of God. God is usually a creator, a controller of the universe, or an arbiter of morality. When Anselm tries to prove this form of God, it is disconnected from many attributes described as God. Another point against this line is that God does not have to be constrained by our thoughts. God could be something beyond our comprehension.…
Out of the two arguments presented by Anselm and Aquinas the one that makes the most sense to me is Aquinas. I think this because, unlike Anselm, Aquinas believes that people will never be able to fully grasp an understanding of “God’s nature” through reason alone. In my opinion Anselm is a mix between Locke's Empiricism and Kant's Structuralism. On the other hand Aquinas is more along the lines of someone who practices Plato's Dualism, and Descartes' Rationalism.…
In this paper I will be arguing against Thomas Aquinas’ fifth way, a teleological argument supporting the existence of God. Aquinas’ philosophical argument rests primarily on a claim about the explanation for processes, their origins, and ends. I will try to combat his conclusion that there must be an intelligent being that designed and guides all things to their ends. This will be done through referencing the science of Darwinian Evolution. I will then build upon this fact, ultimately producing an inductive, and hopefully coherent, argument. Since there are probably multiple instances of processes not being guided by an intelligent source, there’s most likely not a being in which all natural things are guided to their ends.…
Anselm begins his treatise from the first beginning i.e. the creation. Anselm seems to follow in the tradition of St. Augustine in his conception of angelic sin. Augustine held the view that everything that is created by God, is good in itself. Since all angels have been…
Anselm defines God as a being “that than which no greater can be conceived.” He argues that, whatever can be understood exists in the mind and that the concept of God can be understood, so God exists in the mind. Anselm then tries to prove that God also exists in reality and not only in the mind. The first premises states “assume that God only exists in the mind and not in reality.” The second premises positions “but then a greater being than God can be thought.” Finally, we can conclude “but God was defined as a being that than which nothing greater can be conceived; so, no greater than God can be thought.” The second and last premises that “a greater being than God can be thought” and “no greater than God can be thought” are contradictions. Therefore, our original assumption that God only exists in reality must be false. Anselm implies that only a fool would deny God’s existence. He questions, “Why, then, has the fool said in his heart, there is no God (Psalms XIV. 1), since it is so evident, to a rational mind, that you do exist in the highest degree of all? Why, except that he is…
Ontological arguments are a priori, they begin with some prior claim about the concept of God, and deduce conclusions or proof from this conception. In line two, he asserts that if God, or x is the most perfect object thought, it then follows also that x exists either in the understanding or reality. Line 3 follows from this assertion. In line 4 Anselm asserts that if x exists in the understanding only, then something else greater can be thought and that being greater, it then must exist in reality. In line 5 he restates his assertion in line one, and concludes that x then exists in reality.…