Anselm seeks to explain the existence of a greatest being, i. Anselm attempts to prove the existence of God by providing us with a logical explanation, based upon our understanding, definition, and necessity of God. It is inconceivable for God not to exist.
References and Further Reading 1. The Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments It is worth reflecting for a moment on what a remarkable and beautiful! Normally, existential claims don't follow from conceptual claims.
If I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses exist, it is not enough just to reflect on the concepts. I need to go out into the world and conduct some sort of empirical investigation using my senses.
Likewise, if I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses don't exist, I must do the same. In general, positive and negative existential claims can be established only by empirical methods. There is, however, one class of Anselms cosmological argument essay. We can prove certain negative existential claims merely by reflecting on the content of the concept.
Thus, for example, we can determine that there are no square circles in the world without going out and looking under every rock to see whether there is a square circle there. We can do so merely by consulting the definition and seeing that it is self-contradictory.
Thus, the very concepts imply that there exist no entities that are both square and circular. The ontological argument, then, is unique among such arguments in that it purports to establish the real as opposed to abstract existence of some entity. Indeed, if the ontological arguments succeed, it is as much a contradiction to suppose that God doesn't exist as it is to suppose that there are square circles or female bachelors.
In the following sections, we will evaluate a number of different attempts to develop this astonishing Anselms cosmological argument essay. The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument a. The Argument Described St. AnselmArchbishop of Canteburyis the originator of the ontological argument, which he describes in the Proslogium as follows: For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: But obviously this is impossible.
Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form: It is a conceptual truth or, so to speak, true by definition that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined.
God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God that is, a greatest possible being that does exist.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Intuitively, one can think of the argument as being powered by two ideas.
The first, expressed by Premise 2, is that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates all of the perfections. Otherwise put, Premise 2 asserts that we have a coherent idea of a being that instantiates every property that makes a being greater, other things being equal, than it would have been without that property such properties are also known as "great-making" properties.
Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection or great-making property. Accordingly, the very concept of a being that instantiates all the perfections implies that it exists.
Suppose B is a being that instantiates all the perfections and suppose B doesn't exist in reality. Since Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection, it follows that B lacks a perfection.
But this contradicts the assumption that B is a being that instantiates all the perfections. Thus, according to this reasoning, it follows that B exists. Gaunilo's Criticism Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a monk and contemporary of Anselm's, is responsible for one of the most important criticisms of Anselm's argument.
It is quite reasonable to worry that Anselm's argument illegitimately moves from the existence of an idea to the existence of a thing that corresponds to the idea.
As the objection is sometimes put, Anselm simply defines things into existence-and this cannot be done. Gaunilo shared this worry, believing that one could use Anselm's argument to show the existence of all kinds of non-existent things: Now if some one should tell me that there is … an island [than which none greater can be conceived], I should easily understand his words, in which there is no difficulty.
But suppose that he went on to say, as if by a logical inference: And since it is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist both in the understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist.
For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it; and so the island understood by you to be more excellent will not be more excellent.Anselm attempts to prove the existence of God by providing us with a logical explanation, based upon our understanding, definition, and necessity of God.
It is inconceivable for God not to exist. There is a certain nature through which everything that is exists, Anselm explains, is caused to exist by something.
- The Ontological Argument Presented by Descartes and the Cosmological Argument Presented by Aquinas Descartes, often called the father of modern philosophy, developed Anselm’s argument, in attempting to prove God’s existence from simply the meaning of the word ‘God’.
Anselm starts the argument with a definition, and uses this definition to prove god into existence, however this argument relies on a particular definition and analysis of a particular one. Essays & Papers Explain Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay Explain Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay Anselm’s ontological argument is an a priori proof of God’s existence.
Essay Anselm’s Ontological Argument. The ontological argument for God’s existence is a work of art resulting from philosophical argumentation. An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone. The term a priori refers to deductive reasoning.
St. Anselm 's Ontological Argument On The Existence Of God Is Sound “God” is defined as the greatest being in this argument. St.
The Cosmological Argument as proof of God The Cosmological Argument is born out of premise that the world must have a cause and a reason for existing. The word ‘cosmos’ comes the Greek word meaning concerned with cause. Cosmological Argument. A cosmological argument attempts to prove the existence of God. The argument attempts to do this by showing that an infinite number of regressions that caused things to exist, is not there. The cosmological argument usually . Essay Anselm's Ontological Argument; Essay Anselm's Ontological Argument. These theories are the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. St. Anselm of eleventh century, and Descartes of seventeenth century, have used the ontological argument for proving the existence of God. More about Essay.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument on the existence of God is sound, but since ontological arguments are conceptual, one must approach soundness away from the classical guidelines.