##selm's Ontological Argument For The Existence Of An All-Perfect God?

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. One of the problems that he brings forth is that Anselm’s argument could be applied to things other than God. If the argument were valid, it could be applied to things that are clearly imaginary. Here is where the example of the lost island is introduced. Gaunilo invited his readers to think of the greatest, or most perfect, conceivable island. As a matter of fact, it is likely that no such island actually exists. However, his argument would then say that we aren't thinking of the greatest conceivable island, because the greatest

Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existence, for perfection cannot merely exist as a mental phenomenon. God is, according to Anselm, self-evident in the mind. Criticisms to this argument can be found in Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo, who argues that such an argument can be used to - put

The ontological argument has been very controversial. Even many who believe in God’s existence question its validity. A contemporary of Anselm named Guanilo responded to Anselm. Guanilo said that one could imagine a perfect island but that did not mean a perfect island exists. Others have said you can imagine a unicorn but that does not mean unicorns exist. Thus, many challenge the idea that

Where Anselm’s reasoning is flawed is in his fourth point: that God can be thought to exist in reality. When Anselm says “And surely that then which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding as well”, there is no substance to this statement. Anselm provides no information to justify this point. Anselm then goes on to say “For

One of the criticisms of the ontological argument is by the monk Gaunilo. Gaunilo tries to use the same concept of Anselm’s argument to refute the claims he made. He tries to use the analogy of “The Perfect Island”. (1) A perfect island is an island after which nothing greater exist. (2)The perfect island exists in the mind. (3)The perfect islands exist in the mind and not in reality and can be conceived to exist. (4)To exist is better than not exist. Therefore, the perfect islands exist. Gaunilo’s perfect island is similar to the logical reasoning behind Anslem’s argument. He reasons that the thought of a perfect island can exist in the mind. The perfect island is one that which there is nothing greater. If the perfect islands exist in the

Another part of Anselm's argument is the idea that it is greater to exist in reality as well as mind, rather than simply mind. This speaks specifically to premise 7 of his argument. While in a quantitative sense this is necessarily true (existing in 2 ways rather than only 1, and 2 being greater than 1), it is certainly questionable whether the opponent of this argument would see it as being objectively better. An opponent of premise 7 might say that an idea can remain perfect, like the chocolate cake you dream about eating. Prior to eating it, you perceive it to be perfect, your mouth begins to water, and your conception of that cake you are going to eat exists in your mind in some way. Then, once you eat the cake, it's dry, stale, and the frosting

     Many objections have been raised as to the validity and soundness of Anselm’s ontological argument. One of the most compelling and most famous objections was present by Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century. Kant found fault with Anselm’s premise that if something exists in reality, it is greater than if it exists in the understanding alone. According to this objection, “existence'; is not a characteristic or property. Therefore a thing’s greatness would depend solely on what properties it has; whether or not something exists in reality or only in the understanding does not affect its greatness in any way. For example, consider an imaginary one hundred dollar bill with all the same properties as a one hundred dollar bill that does exist in reality. The only difference between the real bill and the imaginary one is that the former

In the prologue of Anselm’s Monologion, he states that his goal is to offer indisputable deductive reasoning for the existence of God. He begins his argument for God’s existence by working through the unquestionable idea, that some things are innately better than others. Using the analogy of a horse, Anselm logically explains that strength and speed are considered good in the context of a horse. A strong horse is equally as good as a fast horse, however these qualities are different in their own respects. He argues that good things all have an element of diversity. For example, he says that a strong and fast thief would not be considered something good, although strength and speed are looked at as good qualities. His argument so far is sound; it cannot be argued that some things aren’t better than others. He also states that good things are diverse and all good things must come from one good thing or a greater good. The greater good is then good within itself, since all diverse goods derive from the greatest good. Concluding that there’s a greater good that generates goodness, is good within itself and is its own cause in turn making it supremely good. Whatever is supremely good must be supremely great which, makes it better and worth more, and so to be supremely good something must be supremely great which, must make it the best, leading it to be supreme among all existing things.

It seems that Anselm is saying one statement, but that statement contradicts previous statements that he has come up with. Anselm’s ontological argument then becomes weak because he is not consistent with his argument. He argues one point, then in the next argument he contradicts his last point by stating something in the complete opposite direction. This makes it very difficult for a reader to actually understand what Anselm is trying to

This argument may seem sound, but it is not. You have to understand that God is that being in which nothing greater can be thought to get Anselm's argument as shown by Thomas Aquinas. Anselm failed to acknowledge that some people may not define God as that being in which nothing greater can exist. Anselm just jumped from the idea of something to the reality of it. The idea of God as the being which nothing greater can exist is sound, but it is not possible to jump from this idea to the reality of God as that being.

The argument of whether God does or doesn’t exist has been a popular philosophical topic and everyday topic around the world for many centuries. It is a very important concept that philosophers have been trying to grasp since the beginning of philosophy. Anselm and Hume both have arguments that give us reasons to believe whether God exists or doesn’t exist. In this paper, I will venture into Anselm’s ontological argument, Hume’s contra-ontological argument, and objections to both of these arguments.

In Anselm’s The Ontological Argument, he analyzes the definition of god in his own version of the ontological argument. He claims that god cannot exist solely in the mind without also existing in reality. God is too great a being to be only understood in the mind without existing, which would make him less than great and contradict the understanding. By understanding God, we prove that he exists in reality, and cannot deny his existence, whether it be in the material world or in the

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

Anselm in this case defines God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm 30). Ontological arguments tend to be a priori, which is an argument that utilizes thoughts as opposed to empirical evidence to prove validity. Anselm addresses the Atheist fool in an attempt to disprove him “since the fool has said in his heart, There is no God?”(Anselm, 30). Anselm stressed that it is obligatory to recognize God as a perfect being that cannot be improved upon, and if someone understands the concept of God, then God exists in that person’s understanding. It is greater to exist in reality than just simply the understanding. The fool understands the concept of God. Therefore the fool has God in his understanding. Suppose God exists only in the understanding of the fool and not in reality. We could then think of something exactly as it existed in the fools understanding but it can also exist in reality, and the being we conceived of would be greater than the being that exists in the fools understanding. Therefore God exists not only in the understanding of the fool but also in reality. By showing that God exists in reality as well as in the understanding, we see that it is imperative that we should believe in God and that it is indeed reasonable.