Anselm, The Archbishop Of Canterbury

Prior to reconstructing the argument, I will inspect the 'a priori' ontological argument, an argument that is solely justified through reasoning alone and based upon concepts and logical relations. To begin with, Anselm introduces "the fool", one that denies the existence of a greater conceivable being. He argues that this "fool" understands what is conceived but does not believe it to actually exist. The fool merely conceives of such a being to exist in his mind, because he has been told of its existence. Anselm adopts "the fool's" understanding of God's existence to prove his a priori argument, as if God exists in the understanding alone, but can be conceived to exist in reality, then God must exist in reality.

On the other hand, Guanilo who was an 11th century monk criticized Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God. Gaunilo makes a completely parallel argument to Anselm’s argument in which the parallel is about a lost perfect island. Guanilo argues that Anselm’s ontological argument is a failure because reasoning of the same kind would compel one to conclude that many things exist but it is certain that they do not. Guanilo thought that the human intellect is only able to understand information that went through the process of experience. In Guanilo’s “Lost Island” refutation, he used a parallel by replacing God with the idea of a “lost perfect island”. An island that was so great that we cannot conceive an island that is greater. In Guanilo’s point of view, Anselm’s ontological argument only works if the existence of a lost perfect island also works as the two arguments give the same logical form. To summarize Guanilo’s response to Anselm, if Anselm’s proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable being were reliable, then we can also give reliable proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable island. He also says that we cannot

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

This conclusion can be demonstrated, not with Gaunilo's island argument, but through a basic question: what if Anselm's fundamental premise -- the definition of God as the that beyond which nothing greater can be conceived -- is false? This question is not asking if the definition of God is inaccurate, which leaves the way clear for Anselm's response to Gaunilo. Instead, the question is keyed to the possibility that God may, indeed, not exist. While the author of this paper denies the question as ultimately untrue (i.e., God does exist), it is a valid one to ask in just this type of a discussion. Anselm's argument requires an initial assumption of God as existing in some state -- at least in the mind. The idea that the thought of God's existence

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.

The original Proslogion simplified key ideas from Anselm’s earlier work, Monologion. In his ontological argument, Anselm states, "If God exists only in thought, God could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is (a far) greater (thing)." Anselm believed in the existence of God and he also believe that because God exists, he is greater than a god who doesn’t (exist).

In her book Perfect Being Theology, Katherin A. Rogers wrote, “None of us can comprehend the intrinsic being of God.” A truer word might never have been spoken with such brevity. Yet, theologians and philosophers find themselves contemplating not only the existence of God, but also what constitutes God as “God”. During such conversations, God is conceived as a perfect being (or the best possible being). God as the perfect being dates to pre-Socratic philosophy, and the idea became permanently a part of Christian theology since Augustine, if not before him. Anselm of Canterbury, being highly influence by Augustine, became one of the first examples to produce a “clear and systematic attempt at a perfect being theology.” On account of this, it remains imperative for modern day theologians (and students!) to critically reflect on Anselm’s conception of God. Thus, this paper will be an engagement with Anselm’s perfect being theology by 1) sketching the major tenets of Anselm’s perfect being theology, 2) asserting some of the merits of his theology, 3) exposing a pitfall of his perfect being theology, 4) giving a rebuttal of said pitfall, and 5) closing on the success of Anselmian perfect being theology.

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

Just so I have something to print out about this sump pump. I called Pickrell Brothers. They helped me figure out which Zoeller pump Louisville was asking for/needed. It was the Zoeller model M98, which costs $255.04. They have it in stock as well, so we can send someone to get it when we need it. I told Ron, but we both know that he will forget! I'm going to look up the PDS on it and send it on over to Earl and Yolanda. Thanks!

Throughout this paper I will discuss the argument of Anselms ontological argument for the existence of god. His basis of his argument being an analytical breakdown for the reason fot gods exsistence. While also establishing that Anselms inferences found with his use of deduction and logical means to prove the existence of a higher being are indeed true. In addition I will defend Anselms argument by depicting other people’s objections against his argument. Specifically the argument made by Gaunilo, who disagreed with Anselms argument and tried to use logical reasoning to prove him wrong. Essentially, Gaunilo stated that Anselms use of deduction could be altered and used to prove the existence of any concept by simply using the similar notion that Anselm used to prove the existence of god.

He said that according to Anselm's line of reasoning, if he envisioned an island that is beautiful and sparkling and completely perfect, then it must exist. For an island that does exist would be more perfect than one that does not exist. Gaunilo said that we cannot simply define things into existence. We cannot show an island or God exists simply by analyzing that idea.

Gaunilo’s Criticism Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a monk and contemporary of Anselm's, is responsible for one of the most important criticisms of Anselm's argument. Anselm's argument illegitimately moves from the existence of an idea to the existence of a

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