Analysis Of Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument

Assuming the deeds of God are evident in the world, all they would demonstrate is the existence of the concept of God, but they could say nothing about the particular character of God; they could not establish God in the sense of a proper noun {should I have already introduced this concept}. By definition though, there is an absolute relationship between the works of God and the concept of God, and so Kierkegaard explores whether through this means we can at least establish proof for the concept of

I have always just accepted that whatever God commands is the morally right action and have never really thought about the arguments against it. After realizing that there are so many arguments against it, this has led me to disagree with the Divine Command Theory. Because there are a vast variety of religions in this world, there are multiple different God or gods that people believe in. Just because I have a set religion and God that I believe in does not mean that someone else’s view is wrong. Also, how can we know for sure what God’s commands are?

This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.

In Proslogium St. Anselm presents his argument for the existence of God, an argument that has thus far withstood the test of time and many criticisms, one of which I will discuss here. Anselm works his way from the “fool’s” assumption that God does not exist, or at least does not exist in reality, through his premises that existence is greater than understanding alone and that a being with God’s properties and existence can be conceived of, to the conclusion that because God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived and God can exist in understanding, God must exist in reality. Gaunilo, a fellow monk, gives his criticism of Anselm’s argument in the form of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Gaunilo attempts to show Anselm’s argument to be false by taking a parody of Anselm’s argument to an extreme and absurd conclusion, that being the existence of the Perfect Island from the same reasoning as the existence of God. I then present a reply that I believe to be in accordance with something Anselm might have responded to Gaunilo with.

We watch the movie “Lord of the Rings” and see Legolas sliding down steps on a shield while using his bow and arrow to kill Orcs, without doubting his skills. By us not questioning his actions nor inquiring how he can do the impossible, we are willingly suspending or disbelief. In my definition this means that you sacrifice realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment; you believe the unbelievable. The term is an essential part of theatre because as a narrator of any kind in theatre, you would want to create an allusion for the audience, which they believe without a doubt, like for “The Lord of the Rings”. The idea of suspension of disbelief is used in other areas of knowledge in order to understand and explain it, which is why it is essential

Mavrodes explains that if god is omnipotent, then the stone question is a contradiction in and of itself. His reasoning makes logical sense because if one agrees that god is an all powerful entity, then there is no realm in which god can create something that he cannot lift. As Mavrodes articulates, the crux of the question is its built in attempt to imply that god is not omnipotent. And, if one believes that God is not omnipotent, then it follows that of course god would not be able to lift the stone, or would not be able to create a stone heavy enough to lift thus rendering him non-omnipotent. And, if one believes that god is omnipotent, then this question is irrelevant because this question is a contradiction.

He tried to show the existence of all kinds of non-existent things. He uses an example of an island, that is perfect in his mind but it doesn 't exist,. He starts off by assuming that the island is the greatest thing in the mind and nothing can conceive it, in other words he

Does the Ontological Argument successfully show that God exists? Anselm 's ontological argument is a philosophical argument which aims to prove God 's existence. The ontological argument is an argument for God’s existence based on reason alone. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God’s existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it.

Descartes talks about God as if God is infinite because he radiates out in every direction. Descartes imagines that he himself is perfect and has the perfect qualities of God. This leads him to the discussion of disobeying God and turning into what one wants rather than what God wants. By doing what oneself wills, not what God wills, one is basically implying the he or she sees him or herself as God-like. Descartes believes he is partially God because he is on his way to infinite knowledge, but since he is gaining little by little, he is in a state of potentiality.

Christian theologian William Lane Craig argues that without the existence God, a person’s life is devoid of meaning, purpose, and value. He claims that since God provides these, he allows humans to lead a satisfying and productive existence. Craig also states that without God, we are without guidance, meaningless, and in despair. In disagreement with atheist philosophers, Craig concludes that it is impossible to live a fufilling life without God. In this paper, I will examine each argument, and provide insight related to the strengths and weaknesses of his claims.

Be that as it may, the scholar can, in the event that he wishes, acknowledge this feedback. He can concede that no discerning confirmation of God 's presence is conceivable. Also, he can in any case hold all that is key to his position, by holding that God 's presence is known in some other, non-judicious way. I think, notwithstanding, that an all the more telling feedback can be made by method for the convention issue of shrewdness. Here it can be appeared, not that religious convictions need discerning backing, but rather that they are emphatically unreasonable, that the few sections of the crucial philosophical convention are conflicting with each other, so that the scholar can keep up his position in general just by a significantly more amazing dismissal of reason than in the previous case.

Saint Anselm is known as one of the most important Christian philosophers of his time and still today. He is best known for his ontological argument regarding God’s existence and is consistently referenced for his work regarding the nature of God, redemption, freedom, and sin. Anselm believes God to be something “…that which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm, 40). He finds support and uses personal and commonsense logic to support his main ideas. His argument is broken up into several topics that reference the concept of just considering the idea of God, His true existence, considering the impossibility of God’s nonexistence, and a few others.

Saint Anselm’s Ontological Argument was most likely constructed during a time when the majority of the population was religious, in order to strengthen the belief that God exists. The thesis of the argument is as straightforward as it gets – that God does indeed exist. In this argument, God is defined to be the greatest entity that an individual can ever conjure in his or her mind. His argument uses the reductio assumption, and the proof that starts it off – ironically – is that God does not exist. It is assumed that the majority of the people living back then believed in God, but in order to emphasise this fact, Anselm talks about how “even the fool” that does not believe in God, admits that God is thought to exist.

The Ontological Argument “The Ontological Argument, which was first clearly formulated in the Middle ages, proposes that one can prove the existence of God simply by analyzing the concept of God”(3). The history of the ontological argument is a long one that started with St. Anselm of Canterbury, who wanted to find a single argument for the proof that God exists. He puts forward the argument that God is defined to be ‘that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought’. This is an acceptable argument because many believed that “God is a perfect being and no other creatures are superior to God” (6). Attributes of Omniscience, knowing everything; Omnipotence, being able to do anything possible; and omnibenevolence, being morally perfect.

Many philosophers have argued and defined what it means to exist in order to prove or disprove the existence of God. George Berkeley, a Irish philosophers argues for the existence of God. The existence of a great perceiver causing ideas in our minds. On the other hand, David Hume, a Scottish philosopher is a skeptic, he argues to undermine religion, critiquing that religion can have harmful consequences on society. These empiricists argue to establish or dismiss religion because it sets universal notions in which it operates as part of society’s morality.