Ontological Arguments : The Ontological Argument

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.

30. Question : Which of the following would you consider not to be a rangland?

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.

Gaunilo challenges Anselm by providing his ow analogy of an abundant land. Guanilo explains the land mass to be surrounded by the ocean in a discreet location impossible to navigate to. Gaunilo names this island the “Lost Island” since no has been able to find the island or prove its existence. In this moment Gaunilo compares his island analogy to Anelm’s argument of understanding the idea of a “Lost Island” or the existence of “God” are one in the same. Anelm’s rebuttal seems more fitting to win the audience as he compares the “island” to something that has a limit. New treasures are discovered every day but the reality remains that God above all most mysterious and powerful being in the cosmos. Man can understand the concept of God

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

The ontological argument was first formulated by St. Anselm in the 11th century. It argues the existence of God from a deductive and a priori stance. God is a being than which none greater can be conceived. This is the response given by St Anselm to the fool in the psalm who believed there was no God. St Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Benedictine Order explained that for God to exist in the mind he would not be the greatest being. However were God to exist in the mind and reality this would make a being ‘than which none greater can be conceived’, this means God must exist.

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

In support he writes that it is not a problem of understanding the concept of a being in which nothing greater can be thought, but instead the problem lies with accepting whether or not the being exists in reality as well as imagination (Feinberg 30). For example, when brainstorming at the start of writing an essay the ideas exist in one’s personal imagination, but they do not exist in reality until the ideas are drafted and then made complete with the writing of the essay. In other words, the idea of the existence of God is first in the understanding that an all-powerful

Philosophers have for long debated on the existence of a Supreme all powerful and all perfect God, Kant, and Anselm being among them. Where Anselm has supported the presence of God and all the attributes that regard to the Him, Kant has risen up with a counter argument. The interaction between the two, the philosophical objection raised by Kant, and what this means to the rest of mankind will be analyzed in this paper.

If a person can realize that God is the greatest thing, and nothing greater can be thought, than they simply believe that he would exist, even if they do not realize they believe in him.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.