Essay about A Philoshpical Approach to Proving the Existence of God

In the bible, it says that “Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God” (Psalms 14:1). Anselm's reflection to this has become known as the Ontological Argument. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” One way to interpret this phrase is to define “God” as maximal perfection, i.e. the greatest possible being. Anselm justifies his argument by using the idea of a painter. When a painter first knows of what it is he or she wants to accomplish, they have it in their understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. They don’t understand it to exist because they have yet to construct their painting. He is trying to say that there is a difference between saying that something actually exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something actually exists. when you hear the word square, you picture a square, or when you hear the word circle, you picture a circle. Anselm argued when humans hear the word God, they think Supreme Being. When I hear the word “God,” I recognize a God that I know from my personal experiences, but I also know that this God of mine is also working through the lives of everyone, not just mine. He has an intimate oneness with all of us, even if we don’t recognize or know it. I don’t think the God I know of is worried about whether people are religious or not. I think this God is interested in exploring experience, through us.

Ontological argument is an argument that is not based on inspection of the universe, but rather on rationality alone. This type of argument reasons from the study of being or existence (ontology).

An important critique of this is that Anselm argues that God is a perfect being which exists. However, can anything that exists be perfect?

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

Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality.

This argument for God’s existence was developed by the twelfth century theologian and philosopher, Anselm. It is based on Anselm’s declaration that God is “that which nothing greater can be conceived.”

exists and his idea of what a perfect being is, such as God, then God exists.

Anselm believed in a perfect being theology, and support for premise one resides within Anselm's Principle of God's Necessary Perfection (Marenbon 121). A being 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' is by definition the greatest being, or most perfect being, possible. He uses the idea that 'that which nothing greater can be conceived' exists in someone's mind as a starting point, and seeks to build upon this foundation to show that God necessarily exists in reality as well. If it could not be conceived in one's understanding, then as far as this argument is concerned, it couldn't be shown to exist in reality as well.

He explains that God cannot be fully understood by humans. Since God is the greatest thing ever, it is hard to understand what this mean as a human. Therefore, God cannot be fully understood because humans cannot fully understand what it means to be the greatest thing. Anselm's argument in chapter three is valid, assuming God is the greatest thing and that the greatest thing is something which is conceived to exist then a God should exists. Assume God is the greatest and that the greater things must exists then God must exist.

According to Kant, existence is not a predicate/property that a thing can either possess or lack. He claims that when people say that God exists they are not saying that there is a God who possesses the property of existence. If that were the case, then when people say that God does not exist they would be saying that there is a God and he lacks the property of existence. They would then both be affirming and denying God’s existence at the same time. Kant suggests that to say that something exists is to say that the concept of that thing is exemplified in the world. For example, as long as there is a ‘Romeo-who-exists’, there is also a ‘Romeo’. And, as long as there is a ‘Romeo’, there is also a ‘Romeo-who-exists’. Adding ‘exists’ has in effect added nothing. (Chapman, 2016) Kant claims that it is impossible to compare a God that exists to a God that does not. They are both the same. A God that exists is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. A God that does not exist is also all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving. According to Kant, this shows that Anselm’s ontological argument

The existence of God has always been an arguable topic. Descartes’ however, believed that he had proof of God’s existence through an intense analysis of the mind. Throughout this paper I will discuss what he has provided as proof and some of the complications that arise throughout his argument.

This concept of God’s existence is also led with the idea that God is a necessary being, a being that is not dependent of something greater in order to exist. If God relied on another being, like how a children rely on parents to conceive them, then this being called God is not God because it would be imperfect. Therefore, there must be another to call God that meets all the requirements for perfection. One of the first popular objections was created by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. The premise and conclusion to Gaunilo’s argument is identical to Anselm’s argument except with the replacement of the word “God” with “the Lost island” and the word “being” with “island”. As simple as that, though Gaunilo’s argument is completely absurd, Gaunilo’s reductio ad absurdum also proves to be as deductively valid as Anselm’s argument. However, this “Lost Island” could in no way exist. The absurdity and validity of “the lost island” quickly brought up questions as to how Anselm’s Argument cannot be absurd. Anselm’s argument was not proven invalid until Immanuel Kant, a german philosopher during the 18th century, proposed an objection that would be the decisive blow to the Ontological argument (Immanuel Kant. Wiki). Kant’s

Anselm understood god and beings, not necessarily from a logical or materialistic point of view but from the revelation he received from his devotion to God. He thought that all things living were perfect within themselves and that was proof enough for a God. He rationalizes that if we imagine two identical objects one exists and the other did not, then the one which exist is more perfect (Roca and Schuh 150). He concludes that existence makes something perfect.

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

Without this premises his argument would fail. It must be agreed to, because it is a true statement. You do not have to believe in God in order to agree to these Premises. In agreeing to these first premises, St Anselm forces you to admit that God does exist in reality because his premises support his conclusion. St. Anselm's Theory is that if God is that which nothing greater can be conceived, the idea of God must exist, if only in the mind. To exist in reality is greater than existing in the mind (idea). Therefore God, being that which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality. All his premises support his conclusion, creating a valid and sound argument proving that God must exist.