Anshelm´s Proof of God´s Existence

There are two arguments going on in this article, “Proslogion and Exchange with Gaunilo” and “Treatise on God”. It is an ontological argument between Anselm, Gaunilo, and Aquinas. I like this article because it is about god is real or not. Anselm is born in Aosta, in 1033. He wants his readers to believe that god does not exist but he is in our thoughts. If there is something better than god is foolish. He is saying in his article that,” Better to be just than unjust, and better to be happy than unhappy.” I believe the thought. He is trying to explain that god is everywhere and he is helping us. He is little upsets with Gaunilo because he does not agree that god exists. Gaunilo thinks that nothing better than the thought and true nature.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

3. How did patterns of settlement differ among the Spanish, English, French, and Dutch immigrants to the Americas?

An age-old debate that has existed in religious studies concerns which argument for the existence of God is the strongest. The existence of God is pervasive throughout the world, although the means with which people attempt to prove His existence varying in significant (and sometimes contrasting) ways. Although there have been myriad methods for proving God's existence, a central dispute concerns whether or not to use a rational approach or a more Biblically-grounded approach. This paper examines three theories that are germane to the rational approach the Five Proofs issued by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, the central premise of St. Anselm's Proslogion, and Augustine's premise from his canonical text City of God. After discussing these three arguments, two Christological arguments are discussed, namely Richard Bauckham's thesis from God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (1999) and William Lane Craig's argument from "The Resurrection of Jesus" (Date Unknown). Following a description of these theories, this paper argues in favor of the rational approach because it is more systematic in its justification for God's existence.

The earth is 4.6 billion years old, if you scale that to forty-six years we have been here for only 4 hours. Our industrial revolution began 1 minute ago. In that time we have destroyed more than 50% of the world’s forest and used most of our fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a nonrenewable energy source because it take millions of years to form. We are quickly using up our natural resources and destroying our planet.

A satire, by definition, is a way of using humor that shows the weakness or bad qualities of person, government, or society (Merriam-Webster). Satires are used in everyday life to make fun of someone or a society. We see it used in newspapers, magazines, and on television shows. This element is used in literature, as well. Many authors have used this element in their books, such as Mark Twain in his classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

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 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.

We simply just cannot think of anything greater than God, which makes God 'that than which nothing greater can be thought'. Aquinas was another critic who replied to the ontological argument. He said that Anselm's definition of God is not immediately obvious. He said that God's existence is not self evident to human beings. He said that Anselm's move from mind to reality was simplistic and a problem.

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

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.