Anselm begins his argument in proslogion two by stating that there is no greater being than God. This greatness does not necessarily mean large, but it entails that God is the most perfect conceivable being in every single way. Furthermore, Anselm does not say that God is the most perfect being in existence, but rather that God
Anselm’s argument is based on the assumption of the universal definition of God being the greatest being. Descartes’ argument is based on the assumption that all humans have an idea of infinite perfection. They both do not take into account the fact that some people may have differing thoughts. Another way they are alike is that they are both based on logical evidence instead of physical evidence. Anselm’s argument focuses on the definition and the logic behind it while Descartes’ argument focuses on self-reason for the cause of the idea of infinite perfection.
Besides, Anselm supposes that existence in reality is indeed a great-making quality. This argument is what many philosophers tend to disagree with. Most of the dissenting philosophers try to challenge stem from the basic belief that no expanse of reasonable analysis of any perception is restrained to the existence of anything in reality. Anselm’s leading opponent, Immanuel Kant, puts forward the most vaunted critique of Anselm’s argument. He believes that Anselm’s argument is wrong since existence, in reality, is not a great-making quality (Wilson,
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.
When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis, for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If anyone were to sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of their mind, would that
When looking through the logic of philosophers from the medieval period of Philosophy and their unconvincing logic, we first look at Anselm. Anselm wanted to prove God existed, Anselm argues that you can prove the existence of God through metaphysic metaphysical analysis for example: Think of the most perfect being possible. If you can picture the most perfect being in your mind, then it is possible that it exists only in your mind as an example of Plato’s Theory of Forms. I think Anselm’s argument fails because anything you can imagine can come popping out of your mind if you wished it to be so, If I were too sit down and imagine the perfect God or the perfect island, would that perfect God or island even exist outside of my mind, would that
Despite of Aquinas 's fifth argument being one of the most prominent argument for the existence of God, there are some limitations to the fifth argument. The expected limitations especially from the atheists can be applied to this argument due to its nature in the fact that it’s inductive, meaning we can never be 100% certain of its correctness. One example that can be used by an
Anselm argument is about God’s existence, comparing God’s, existence of a painting. Anselm argues a painting is a creation that was once an idea in a painter’s head, but that does not mean the idea of the painting was not always alive. In disagreement it is clear that Anselm is a new Christian, because this is what new Christian’s struggle with or complain how they cannot see God so why do they need to seek someone they cannot see with their whole heart. The strength of his argument is Anselm has a point that everybody comes across at one point in their lives that one cannot see God and it is up to this person to put their faith in God. God does want his creation that is us to have a choice in his own existence and he wants his creation to have faith in its own existence.
Ontological arguments in favour of Existence of God: The very first sentence of Ontological arguments describing that ‘God is a being by which no greater being can be imagined it is a conceptual truth’. It is extremely wrong because it can be easily criticised. Let me take a example, suppose “x” is something that describes a physical quantity. Then surely “2x” greater than “x” and “3x” greater than “2x” and so on. That means 2 God is greater than 1 God and 3 God is greater than 2 God and so on.
His argument hence shows that represents a larger infinity than . Cantor then adapted the method to show that there are an infinite number of different infinities, each one surprisingly bigger than the one before. Today this amazing conclusion is honoured with the title Cantor's theorem, but during his times most mathematicians did not understand it. He used a generalized version of his diagonal argument to then prove that; for every set Q the power set of Q, i.e., the set of all subsets of Q (here written as P(Q)), is larger than S