Existence of God
For decades, philosophers have provided different arguments for God’s existence. It has prompted the construction of a group of classic arguments. Philosophers such as Guanilo, Aquinas, Anselm, Paley William, and many others have presented different forms of claims where some of them argue against it. In contrast, others attempt to provide conceptual evidence that, indeed, God exists. Within this paper, I will show that Philosopher Anselm’s assertion concerning God’s existence is unsuccessful. First, I will reconstruct the philosopher’s argument regarding the presence of God and discuss why it is critical in its sense. Then, I will use the thoughts of other philosophers as well as my thought to refute Anslem’s arguments, which proves the reasons behind the existence of God. I will also consider objections towards refuting arguments and reply to them comprehensively and logically. Finally, I will provide a summary of the paper’s content outlining the essential elements of the essay.
Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, constructed an ontological argument that proves that God exists, basing its elements in logic and reasoning. Anselm’s argument can be deduced in the following manner:
- God by definition is a being that is greater than all elements imaginable
- God exists in terms of an idea within the mind
- God exists in the form of an idea and the real sense; it is greater than every thought which resides in the mind
- Hence, in case God exists only within the mind, then the humankind can imagine an element which is far beyond God
- But it is impossible to imagine an element which is greater than God
- Therefore, God exists (Anselm 37)
Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Anselm’s argument is convincing due to its validity as the conclusion aligns with its premises. However, most philosophers, as well as my point of reasoning, cannot prove the existence of God primarily through empirical evidence.
Gaunilo’s Criticism
Gaunilo’s argument attempts to use the strategy of Anselm to confirm the existence of an island that is perfect in the perception and reality of humankind. This argument serves as a counter-example of Anslem’s argument. The author asserts that
- The conceptual truth is that Island X serves as an island is one which is the most significant possible island which anyone may imagine (Barnes 122).
- The existence of Island X is an idea generated from the mind
- Island X, which is present not only an idea that resides in a cognitive area but also exists in reality as greater than itself as compared to an idea generated from the mind.
- Hence, if Island X exists in the form of an idea within the cognitive region, then it is easy to imagine an Island with more excellent features than Island X (in other words, the highest possible is nonexistence).
- Yet the humankind is unable to imagine another Island, which is more significant compared to Island X.
- A such, the existence of Island X is a reality.
Gaunilo argues that Anslem’s assertion about God serves as “a being than which none greater can be imagined” is incoherent. It is not logical to say that the qualities which construct the greatness of an island are not similar to the qualities which qualify an element to have conceptually maximum attributes. Regardless of the greatness of an island alluding to some aspects, there are possibilities of imagining an island. It is greater than the one on sight and in mind. For example, if the thought that more fruits are great-making properties of a particular Island, then regardless of an Island’s greatness, there is the possibility of imagining a greater island because there lacks any form of intrinsic maximum alluding to the abundance of any plant or fruit. As such, the idea that God is a being that resides in the thoughts that is greater than any other ideas to be imagined is incoherent.
On the other hand, Findlay argues that Gaunilo’s assertions may not reveal the exact idea of God’s existence in regards to the Anslem conceives the idea (461). As such, properties such as moral goodness, knowledge, and power that inspires the idea of “maximally great being” lacks intrinsic maximum stretch. A good example is the art of perfect experience, which needs only true propositions and knowing all. At the same time, absolute power is the ability to perform all task s, which are possible to occur. Conceptually, it is impossible for a being to fulfill all those tasks and even beyond.
Generally, Hartshorne refutes the claims by asserting that Anslem’s argument can only work for ideas that are merely described to represent properties, which inspires a particular type of intrinsic maximum (56). According to the author, the aspect of “greatest possible being that can be imagined by humankind” assumes that every positive property my undergo presentation in the largest possible degree. This form of argument is meaningless verbiage until there exists a type of intrinsic upper limit or maximum that measures the intensity of all positive properties that a capable of degrees. For example, it is logically not possible to assert that any form of proper fractions needs to go beyond the ration of 1/1, as well as on the particular definition of “angles. It is also impossible to imagine that any angle can extend beyond four right angles. However, it is evident that some properties such as pain, length, or temperature which lacks intrinsic maximums. In case the properties which as important in the perception of God lack the admission of intrinsic maximum. The argument by Anslem does not work since the concept of Guanilo regarding Island X fails to justify the concept of God is coherent. So far, the only relevant perceptions of God are omniscience, moral perfection, as well as omnipotence s Anslem’s notion regarding “the greatest possible being,” is void.
Aquinas Argument
Even though St. Thomas Aquinas argues that God’s existence is self-evident, the great thinker disputes the perception that it can be utilized as a deduction from the claims which illustrate the concept of God. According to Aquinas, not every individual who has a glimpse of God’s word can understand that it is a symbol of an element that is greater than anything imaginable, as some belief God to be a body (Aquinas, 115). Since every individual has a diverse perception regarding the concept of God, Aquinas’s argument effectively convince people who define the understanding of God within a similar line of thought.
On the other hand, Broad rebuts Aquinas’s critique by asserting that the ontological argument may undergo restatement without the definition of God (82). For this to work, one can delete the first premise in Anselm’s arguments and replace every place which recites the word “God” with a phrase such as “a being than non greater can be conceived.” At the end of it, the result will be that “a being than non greater can be conceived” is existing, and it feels so natural to give the name of that being as God.
Nonetheless, even if Anselm assumes that every individual regard God’s existence in the form of a “being which is greater compared” to anything worth imagining. So, there is no evidence to assert that Anslem understands the symbol of the word in the actual sense, but only in the thought sense (Adams 28). A natural interpretation of the ambiguous passage of Anslem regarding God’s existence is that Aquinas rejects the argument that the “concept of God exists in mind.” even though it is possible to perform a rehearsal on the phrase “a being than which none greater can be imagined” within the mind, no one has the idea of the real meaning of this phrase. As such, we can note that God does not resemble any form of reality which the humankind knows. Even though it is easy to understand finite concepts, the concept which signifies an infinitely great being primarily causes a dwarf in the finite human understanding. Humankind can indeed relate the phrase “a being than which none greater can be imagined,” utilizing several “finite” concepts that are familiar. However, the “finite” thoughts are evidently diverse from the assertion that they are an ideal illustration of God as the theories fail to provide humankind with great detail of the idea of God.
Besides, the argument’s success does not necessarily depend on how the complete understanding of “being than which none greater” may be attained. For example, even though people lack an absolute knowledge of a concept like a natural number compared to which no more significant number can be imagined, people have a vast experience that such figures do not exist. There lacks a complete understanding of concepts which include maximally “great being compared to others” is needed, within the perception of Anselm, to structure a whole argument. In case there is coherence within the concept, even just a small understanding of any concept is enough in making an assertion, which is why Anselm’s view regarding God is incoherent.
In conclusion, this paper utilizes a deductive argument to prove that Anselm’s argument regarding God’s existence is null. The assertion by Anselm is quite convincing because one can see its premises and how the conclusion of God’s existence came into being. However, a series of philosophers have developed different forms of arguments that prove that the reasoning point of Anselm does not provide the true nature of God’s existence; hence cannot be adequately utilized to verify that indeed God’s existence is a reality. Guanilo compares Anselm’s assertion by replacing the word “God” by “Island X” but refutes the debate because the greatness of an island cannot be compared to the quality which qualifies an element to have conceptually maximum attributes. Even though an Island may be significant due to the aspects it has, there is the likelihood that there can be a more magnificent island than the one under description depending on different other elements it may have as there is nothing perfect in terms of all elements. Not all individuals have a similar perception about God, as indicated in the premises of Anselm. While the school of thought is still open to every thinker, we still hope to have different philosophical ideas regarding the existence of God. Yet, as for now, Anselm’s argument regarding that God’s presence is unsuccessful.
Work Cited
Adams, R. M. “The logical structure of Anselm’s arguments.” The Philosophical Review, 28-54.
Anselm, St., Anselm’s Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962)
Aquinas, Thomas, St., Summa Theologica (1a Q2), “Whether the Existence of God is Self-Evident (Thomas More Publishing, 1981)”
Barnes, Jonathan, The Ontological Argument (London: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1972)
Broad, C.D., Religion, Philosophy and Psychical Research (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953)
Findlay, J.N., “God’s Existence is Necessarily Impossible,” from Flew, Antony and MacIntyre, Alasdair, New Essays in Philosophical Theology (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1955)
Gale, Richard, On the Nature and Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)
Hartshorne, Charles, The Logic of Perfection (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1962)