Does Anselm prove that God exists :
Anselms definition of God - first formulation - anselm defined god as that which nothing
greater can be conceived this means that God is the greatest possible being, and a being
who exists in reality in greater than a being who exists only in the mind - this strengthens
anselms argument because it builds existence into the very concept of God anselm usdes
the example of the painter where the painting is greater when it exists in reality - if God is the
greatest ever being then he must exist logically thats not an option - this also forces the
aesthiest into contradiction because anselm makes the distinction that the aesthiest knows
the definition of God however he just doesnt believe that God exists in reality however if the
atheist understands the concept of God being the greatest conceivable being then he must
exist in reality - so the aetshiest also says that God is the greatest being “the fool says in his
heart that there is no God” psalms -- criticisms - however critics argue you cannot define
something into existence just because something is defined as perfect doesnt mean it is
perfect which leads us to gainilos argument - existence also requires empirical evidence - if
the definition is rejection that God is not the greatest conceivable being then the argument
fails immediately
Anselm's second formulation -- this is Anselm's argument that God exists necessarily not
contingently - a being existing contingently means that it exists but it doesn't NEED to exist
unlike God who exists necessarily God must exist he cannot not exist - God is defined as
that which nothing greater can be conceived thus a being that exists necessarily is greater
than a being who exists contingently because it God existed contingently it means that there
a greater being could exist this strengthens the ontological argument because this makes
Gods existence no longer probable but logically necessary and gives the argument
maximum deductive strength - as well as this it defeats any claim that anything can be
brought into existence because it creates a distinction God is the only being who exists
necessarily - criticism -- this argument is completely priori which means that it has no
empirical evidence , necessary existence is usually associated with mathematical truths
however its not clear why God must exist necessarily for example evolution might be more
necessary because it caused change in the universe - charles darwin
Gaunilos perfect island argument - anselms ontological argument is that which nothing
greeted can be conceived” and existing n reality is greater than existing only in the mind and
gaunilo says that this claim is absurd because it can define anything into reality -- for
example gaunilo invites the reader to think about a perfect island , with ultimate beauty food
etc according to anselms logic the island would have to exist because an island that exists in
reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind -- this defeats anselms argument
because gaunilo shows how anslems creates a reduction ad absurderum he shows how
anselms reasoning leads to very absurd conclusions -- if the same logic can proce the
existence of a divine being like God and something as small as an island then the logic itself
must be flawed anselms argument allows us to define anything into existence which cannot
be valid reasoning -- if anselms logic can be applied to contingent objects it loses its
credibility existence cannot be a predicate which makes something great -- however anselm
argues that God is a special case through his necessary and logical argument -- however
this argument is still weak it defines something small into a whole thing and gaunilo actually
does believe in God showing again how his logic is weak to even a believer let alone an
atheist
Gaunilos critique of human understanding - gaunilos argument starts by saying that anselm
assumes that we cab conceive God in the mind and that God exists at least in understanding
-- thus if he exists in our mind then exists in reality that means the whole argument relies on
human reason and the idea that humans can meaningfully understand the concept of God --
gaunilo challenges this by saying that we are unable to do so -- theres a large distinction
Anselms definition of God - first formulation - anselm defined god as that which nothing
greater can be conceived this means that God is the greatest possible being, and a being
who exists in reality in greater than a being who exists only in the mind - this strengthens
anselms argument because it builds existence into the very concept of God anselm usdes
the example of the painter where the painting is greater when it exists in reality - if God is the
greatest ever being then he must exist logically thats not an option - this also forces the
aesthiest into contradiction because anselm makes the distinction that the aesthiest knows
the definition of God however he just doesnt believe that God exists in reality however if the
atheist understands the concept of God being the greatest conceivable being then he must
exist in reality - so the aetshiest also says that God is the greatest being “the fool says in his
heart that there is no God” psalms -- criticisms - however critics argue you cannot define
something into existence just because something is defined as perfect doesnt mean it is
perfect which leads us to gainilos argument - existence also requires empirical evidence - if
the definition is rejection that God is not the greatest conceivable being then the argument
fails immediately
Anselm's second formulation -- this is Anselm's argument that God exists necessarily not
contingently - a being existing contingently means that it exists but it doesn't NEED to exist
unlike God who exists necessarily God must exist he cannot not exist - God is defined as
that which nothing greater can be conceived thus a being that exists necessarily is greater
than a being who exists contingently because it God existed contingently it means that there
a greater being could exist this strengthens the ontological argument because this makes
Gods existence no longer probable but logically necessary and gives the argument
maximum deductive strength - as well as this it defeats any claim that anything can be
brought into existence because it creates a distinction God is the only being who exists
necessarily - criticism -- this argument is completely priori which means that it has no
empirical evidence , necessary existence is usually associated with mathematical truths
however its not clear why God must exist necessarily for example evolution might be more
necessary because it caused change in the universe - charles darwin
Gaunilos perfect island argument - anselms ontological argument is that which nothing
greeted can be conceived” and existing n reality is greater than existing only in the mind and
gaunilo says that this claim is absurd because it can define anything into reality -- for
example gaunilo invites the reader to think about a perfect island , with ultimate beauty food
etc according to anselms logic the island would have to exist because an island that exists in
reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind -- this defeats anselms argument
because gaunilo shows how anslems creates a reduction ad absurderum he shows how
anselms reasoning leads to very absurd conclusions -- if the same logic can proce the
existence of a divine being like God and something as small as an island then the logic itself
must be flawed anselms argument allows us to define anything into existence which cannot
be valid reasoning -- if anselms logic can be applied to contingent objects it loses its
credibility existence cannot be a predicate which makes something great -- however anselm
argues that God is a special case through his necessary and logical argument -- however
this argument is still weak it defines something small into a whole thing and gaunilo actually
does believe in God showing again how his logic is weak to even a believer let alone an
atheist
Gaunilos critique of human understanding - gaunilos argument starts by saying that anselm
assumes that we cab conceive God in the mind and that God exists at least in understanding
-- thus if he exists in our mind then exists in reality that means the whole argument relies on
human reason and the idea that humans can meaningfully understand the concept of God --
gaunilo challenges this by saying that we are unable to do so -- theres a large distinction
