Anselm delivered the first known ontological argument in a prayer. He claimed, 1) God exists in the understanding, 2) good might have existed in reality, 3) if something exists only in the understanding, then it is possible for it to be greater, 4) suppose God exists only in the understanding, 5) God might have been greater than it is, and 6) the greatest possible being could have been greater. There is a contradiction between #4 and #6. Guanilo counters Anselm’s argument by demonstrating that one could substitute different words with God and make absurd claims. For instance, he substitutes God for
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
This all sums to the conclusion that God is neither a fabricated idea either. Therefore, as a result, God must be an innate idea. The idea of God is one idea, not a compilation of multiple, of a unity of omniscience, perfection, and infiniteness that is encompassed in one being. We are all born with the idea of a perfect, all-powerful God because God has placed it in our
Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. The Aquinas fourth argument the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in the terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument-
The objection addressed the validity of the argument which had the premise 1, nothing is the efficient cause of itself except God and premise 2, a chain of causes cannot be infinite. The argument thus concludes there must be a first cause. This conclusion agrees with my thesis that Saint Thomas Aquinas’s argument formulated in the second way leads to a valid argument, which concludes that there must be a first cause and that God
Pascal also believed that the belief in God as the only reasonable choice, when Descartes believed that God should always be held true. Their beliefs still back up this objection though. If nothing is known about the external world, or the external world is infinite gain, there is still no absolute certainty in which side of the wager to choose, therefore betting on God as true is still the most reasonable
truth, beauty and goodness. It is thought that these values are everlasting and its realization is actually the realization of God. Plato believes that all three values are similar to each other. It is thought that these values are already present and it depends on man as to how he discovers them. Man himself cannot create values because they are the essence.
Then we look at the second argument of Aquinas, The Argument of Causation- everything that is caused has to be caused by something else, there cannot be an infinite number of causes, and same as argument number one that must mean there is a God since all effects have causes. The Argument from Contingency asks if everything already exists contingently has a reason to do so, does the universe exists for a reason and if the universe has a reason for its existence that that reason must be God. Aquinas’ fourth argument is the Argument from Degrees Aquinas says in order to compare two things in terms of good or bad, we must have something to compare it to, this would have to be an absolutely perfect thing aka God. Aquinas’ fifth and final argument is The Teleological Argument-
The ontological argument is an argument based, not on the observation of the universe as cosmology and theological arguments but rather using only the reason. Everything we see today in the universe was created by a God, which created the humans in a predict time and perfect time. The first and most popular form of this argument starts from Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. It begins with the statement that the concept of God is such a being, that nothing greater can be conceived. Since existence is possible, and existence is greater than non-existence, then God must
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.
For this disputation, I had the pleasure of arguing against the topic of be it resolved that you can convince a non-believer to affirm the existence of God using philosophical arguments. As the opposing side, Sarah and I counter argued the following: the argument from motion, the ontological argument, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. The argument from motion argues that it is only possible to experience that which exists, and people experience God, therefore God must exist; however it can be counter argued that since faith cannot be demonstrated or experienced, as it is unseen, God cannot exist.
The question of god’s existence has been at the forefront of people’s minds for the majority of known history. The reasons this question arises varies from person to person, but holds in common the human craving for knowledge. Because of this there have been many proofs which set out to prove god’s existence of which the most accessible is the ontological argument for the existence of god. The aim is to envision a god which depends on nothing else but itself for existence. The ontological argument seeks to move from the definition of god to the actualization of god’s being.