I like you to write an essay analyzing separately each of the texts in the attached documents. I would like each analysis to start with a summary followed by a transition to analysis of the document. From the Prosologion, Anselm of Canterbury 1077, Hopkins and Richardson trans. (Chaps. 2-5) Summary: St. Anselm argues the existence of God based on the following premises: God exists in our understanding which means that the concept of God exists as an idea in our mind. Anything that exists in our understanding has a correlation/ correspondence in the external world, therefore God is a possible being and may well exist in reality. Something that exists in reality is great. Something that is only a concept in our mind it is not replicated in reality may actually be greater was it to exist in actuality. Now St. Ansell continues let us suppose that God does exist only in our mind, not in reality. This (following from the last premise) would make God greater than He is. So, therefore, God could plausibly attain even greater heights of elevation. This is impossible for when we think of God, the concept God represent ultimate greatness. Hence this is a contradiction within itself. Taking this to its logical conclusion leads us to deduce that it is impossible for God to exist solely in the mind. Hence, he must exist in reality too. Analysis I find Anselm's reasoning tricky and convoluted. Firstly, it is situated in the philosophy of the time, namely in classical Greek Platonic
For what is in a state of actuality cannot cause something that is potential to reach a state of actuality of greater power than its own. This would mean that God is the summation of all things that are actual and potential in the universe. From this, we can observe that humans and their intellect are reflections of God for our intellect would have to at one point been in a state of potentiality, and Gods actuality (in this case his intelligence) would have to had set our potential intelligence into a state of actuality. Therefore, God is
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.
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
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).
Analyze these documents in pairs. You can use their textbooks and/or the power point we used in class to help build their understanding of the material. You should write a thesis statement, intro paragraph and outline a proposed answer. The outline should indicate how you would use the documents to support their argument.
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.”
Directions: The following question is based on the accompanying Documents 1- 13 (The documents have been edited for the purpose of this exercise.) This question is designed to test your ability to work with and understand historical documents. Write an essay that: Has a relevant thesis and supports that thesis with evidence from the documents. Uses all or all but one of the documents. Analyzes the documents by grouping them in as many appropriate ways as possible. Does not simply summarize the documents individually. Takes into account both the sources of the documents and the author’s points of view.
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.
This argument gives the concept that God is pure actuality, if God is indeed pure actuality then there is no potential for God to be any different from what he already is.
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 the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely
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.
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.
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.