A Priori Argument Analysis

The next point Anselm makes is that God existing in reality as well as understanding is greater than just understanding alone. Anselm then follows that with his next point: that it can be thought that God can exist in reality. “So even the fool must admit that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood exists in the understanding. And surely that then which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater” (Proslogion Chapter 2). The first point is self-explanatory. Proving God exists would be much easier if God existed in reality and understanding compared to understanding alone. Similarly, proving a cyclops existed would be much easier if you saw, captured, and defined it as a cyclops than just being able to define a cyclops. It is a reasonable assertion.

Helper believes that the reason the Souths economy was bad, was because slavery had enslaved the South. He talks about how the South is very dependent and gets almost everything from the North. “We want Bibles, brooms, buckets, and books, and we go to the North; … we want toys, primers, school books, fashionable apparel, machinery, medicines, tombstones, and a thousand other things, and we go to the North for them all.” (For the Record, 417) Then, Helper gets to the point and explains that the reason for their poverty and bad economy, was because of slavery. The people of the South depended on slave labor, which is why they were not doing so well economy wise. If it wasn’t for slavery in the South, they would be “patronizing their own mechanics, manufacturers, and laborers” (For the Record, 418) instead of sending everything to the North. Another one of Helper’s arguments is that, the non-slaveholders believe anything the slaveholders tell them. That is why Helper believes the “South, woefully inert and inventionless, has lagged behind the North, and is now weltering in the cesspool of ignorance and degradation.” (For the Record, 419)

Through understanding the errors, I made in Writing Assignment #3 (WA #3) I was able to edit and better understand what corrections was needed for Writing Assignment #4 (WA #4) to become a well thought out paper. For WA #3 I received a B+ because of the lack of further development in my argument, which made the voice in the argument, the context behind sources and the thesis weaker.

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.

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

Continuing off this idea of God being the greatest idea that can be thought, and how the thought of God is in everybody 's mind, Anselm mentions “ If that- than-which- a-greater-cannot -be-thought exists in the mind alone, this is the same than that- which- a- greater- can- be- thought is than that-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that- than-which- a-greater-cannot -be-thought exists in both the mind and reality” (Anselm 88). This proof that is given to us by Anselm is helping to show that God is something that is an idea in everybody 's mind, but existing only in the mind is not enough. As said before Anselm states that no one can think of anything greater than God, but if God was something that was only an idea in people 's’ heads then there would be ways for people to think of things greater than God. Though if God existed outside of someone 's mind, in reality, then it would be impossible for anyone to think of anything bigger than God and because God is something in which nothing greater can be thought, he must exist in both the mind and reality.

In the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely

It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible arguments, such as the “fine-tuning” argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience. A non-believer might even concede some version of a theistic argument has some evidential force, but claim that the overall balance of evidence does not support belief.

Anselm begins by explaining that the notion of God is that he is a being of which no greater could be possible thought of.We know that existence is conceivable and that it is ideal ( better ) to exist than to not, so the rational conclusion should be that God does indeed exist.

Therefore: (5) God exists. The first premise of this argument, (1), is Anselm’s conception of God. (2) is a simple logical truth; if God is the greatest conceivable being then there is no greater conceivable being, (3) follows simply from (1) and (2).

Within the pro-choice world there are many issues that are discussed like abortion, the instant where life begins and the use of contraceptives. This article will focus on not only the issue of using of contraceptives, but specifically the distribution of oral contraceptives (“the pill”) to teenage girls without their parent’s consent.

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.

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.

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.

Waite and Gallagher also discuss the benefits that marriage gives to couples. Including the financial benefits, in that through specialization and by sharing incomes getting married boosts standard of living by thirty percent and this benefit is not incurred by cohabitating, as those who cohabitate do not share as much and are less committed to the wellbeing of their partner. In addition to the financial benefits, they also discuss the emotional benefits of knowing you have someone who loves you and who would take care of you. Children similarly benefit from having married parents as there are more financial resources available to help take care of them and they get to spend more time with at least one parent.