The first chapter of Anselm 's Monologian focuses on Anselm 's argument that there is something that is the best, the greatest, the highest, of all existing things. It is through this unknown something that all things possess their goodness. According to the argument he puts forth, the goodness of things in this world must be caused and must therefore stem from one thing that is good, or from many. If goods can be comparable as goods, it follows that there must be some general and unified way of regarding their goodness, or the source of their goodness. However, if many causes have their goodness in common, it is through this goodness that they cause good things. Ergo, there must be a common source. In either case, whether the cause is one or many, a single, unitary source of goodness is indicated. Anselm argues that this source of all goodness is not good because of something else, but is itself goodness. The proofs for Anselm 's argument are as follows: Whenever various things are said to be "good" in greater, lesser, or equal degree, either a) different "good"s are "good" through different things, or b) there is some one thing through which they are all good. Anselm 's argument supports option b. He purports that there are infinite goods, which can be experienced by the senses and identified through reason. Hence, there is some one thing through which all goods are good, and that through which all goods are good is a great good. Furthermore, that through which all
I was exposed to religion as a child but it didn’t really truly connect with me at first. I have grown up catholic because that is the way my family preaches. I was taught to know to always go to church on Sunday’s and holy days of obligation, if you sin deeply you need to go to confess and the list goes on. Although, as I got older I began the true meaning of God being the greatest being and I started to have my very own religious experiences which raised a lot of questions in me. This now brings me to the argument that I’m going to talk about, The ontological argument.
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.
Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God, (5) follows simply from (3) and (4).
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
This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.
In this essay I will discuss Anscombe’s argument for the conclusion that the state’s authority is justified when it is performing tasks that are necessary and serve the people’s needs. I will then present an objection to the argument that the state’s authority can be justified. Lastly, I will demonstrate why this objection is not sufficient to reject Anscombe’s argument and conclusion.
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
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.”
Where Anselm’s reasoning is flawed is in his fourth point: that God can be thought to exist in reality. When Anselm says “And surely that then which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding as well”, there is no substance to this statement. Anselm provides no information to justify this point. Anselm then goes on to say “For
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).
So now that I’ve explained the key terms needed to understand the two arguments I can begin to describe Anselm’s Ontological argument. First, I can imagine something like a bowl
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.
In the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely
In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying