Thomas Aquinas : A Critique Of The Perception Of God

Human reason is the perception of how things might have came to be. It is the ability to consciously making sense of things and apply knowledge. Faith is the complete and total trust or confidence in someone or something. It can either be the belief in God or in the principles of religion. Faith and reason have each been sources of rationalization for religious belief. Many different authors provide evidence for the claim faith and reason is compatible. Saint Augustine believes that faith provides us with reason, but without reason faith would have never been known to man. Man’s knowledge cannot solely understand reason alone. Reason allows human beings to be brought to God and it is faith that provides us with those reasons. Saint Thomas Aquinas talks about how faith and reason are connected to one another. Both faith and reason are ways of finding the truth because faith is consistent with reason. In Plato’s Allegory of the cave, he expressed that the prisoner’s reasons within the cave misguided them towards faith and God. In the Catholic Intellectual Tradition, the fundamental claim of faith and reason is compatible is brought about in ways someone can find the truth.

While we live in a world that idolizes popstars and political figures, we often forget about the men that made our self expression possible. Humanism is defined as “a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason (Humanism).” St. Francis and St. Aquinas were both key figures in the beginning of this movement. Instead of reflecting on the holy they decided to look inward and also outward at the world that surrounded them. St. Aquinas, St. Francis, and the impacts they had on humanism were monumental and are worthy of discussion.

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

The ontological argument was an argument created by Saint Anselm. Anselm argued that if we thought about what God is and what he can do then we know he must exist. What Anselm means by this is that if our minds can think of something so great like God, we should realize that an all-powerful God must exist in reality. Anselm states that God is, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This quote means if we can comprehend who God is, then there has to be a more powerful God than in our minds, in reality because if God is such a perfect being, then this implies that he must be by definition as well.

Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existence, for perfection cannot merely exist as a mental phenomenon. God is, according to Anselm, self-evident in the mind. Criticisms to this argument can be found in Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo, who argues that such an argument can be used to - put

The argument begins with Anselm defining the term God as “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived” (pg.26). Although simple, once this term is accepted Anselm believes he has successfully proven the existence of God. This becomes clearer with further analysis. If God is a being that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, it naturally follows that God would possess all properties of greatness. An example of this would be omnipotence. Omnipotence would be such a property because it is greater to have ultimate power than to have limited power, therefore, God being the greatest conceivable being would possess the property of omnipotence. Likewise, it is greater for something to exist in both reality and the mind, than to exist only in the mind. Thus, just as omnipotence was ascribed to God so must the property of existence, for if God did not exist, he would be lacking a great making property, and consequently would be only a great being, but not the greatest conceivable being.

There are many proofs for the existence of God, but maybe none are as famous as St. Anselm's Ontological argument. The Ontological argument is addressing God, as a prayer. Anselm analyzes the very idea of God to prove that he exists. There are two versions of Anselm's Ontological argument, and both attempt to show that God must exist. Despite the many critics that Anselm faced including Guanilo, and St. Thomas Aquinas, the Ontological argument continues to be one of the most famous arguments for the existence of God that provides support for those who believe in God.

Anselm now notices that there is a contradiction between his definition of God, and the assumption that God does not exist. If his definition of God demands absolute, unlimited greatness, then a God who does not exist in realty could be said to be inferior to a God that does indeed exist in reality. In our imagining of a God that exists both in our understanding and in reality, we are imagining a being of which its greatness supersedes our first conception of a non-existing God. Thus, according to Anselm’s argument, our previous assumption that God does not exist in reality must in fact be false. Therefore Anselm concludes that God must exist in reality, because if this was not the case, we would be imagining a being greater than the greatest possible being we could imagine – a contradiction no less. So where do the weaknesses in the Ontological argument lie?

In Anselm’s The Ontological Argument, he analyzes the definition of god in his own version of the ontological argument. He claims that god cannot exist solely in the mind without also existing in reality. God is too great a being to be only understood in the mind without existing, which would make him less than great and contradict the understanding. By understanding God, we prove that he exists in reality, and cannot deny his existence, whether it be in the material world or in the

The ontological argument was first developed by St. Anselm. In his address, Anselm considered the Fool of Psalm 14, who held the belief that there is no God. He justified that the Fool’s argument was indeed self-undermining. In the ontological argument, Anselm argued that denying that God exists shows that God does exist. He labeled God as a unique perfect being; all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. In his argument, Anselm draws the distinction between “existing in the mind” and “existing in reality”. The example provided was when a person intends on doing something, it exist in the mind; whereas when a person has actually done something, it exist in reality. However, there are many things that exist only in reality such as the example

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.

singularity there is no time and all of the laws of physics as we know

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

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.