Did Anselm Get It Right?

[asteroid]

KBarn:

It certainly is possible to prove the existence of God. What, for example, are the logical flaws in the Five Ways described by Aquinas in the Summa? Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. all proved God’s existence from His effects, a posteriori. While this does not prove all that Christians believe of God, it proves several important things. Namely, that God is necessary, immutable, eternal, uncaused, and His own act of existence. Consider Aquinas’ proof from Efficient Causality:
What is the flaw in this logic? Yet it demonstrates the logical necessity, if causation does exist, for a being that is an uncaused cause of all things.

What in the logic would make us suppose that the uncaused cause is God? God has many attributes, what in the argument would lead us to apply the attributes to an uncaused cause?

What in the logic would need us to suppose that the uncaused cause (God or otherwise) would continue to exist after setting things in motion? Even if the logic DID show an uncaused cause and that the uncaused cause was God, it would only show that such a being used to exist.

What does modern physics/astronomy say about this? I don’t know much but I know some people say that the universe, matter, did not have a beginning. Aquninas requires these people to be wrong but can offer no scientific proof.

Does anyone really think that if the existence of God could be proved by reason alone that there would have been such a growth in atheism in the age of reason? The “proofs” are impressive, the flaws can be hard to find. Reason can point us to God but as philosophical proofs they all collapse. In the end you can’t prove much philosophically but can have a wonderful time arguing about it.

Just found this site. It’s quite good and quite easy reading (though I think it’s all culled from somewhere else):

experts.about.com/e/a/ar/Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God.htm

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Krebsbach:

Just curious. Does anyone think St. Anselm’s ontological arguement successfully proves the existence of God?

Kordially,

Karl

No.​

FWIW ISTM that even to attempt to “prove” God’s existence is an obscenity. God is not an object alongside others - God is unique, utterly mysterious: not an object to whom man “does things” - such as proving that the God-object exists - but Subject: the God Who acts and speaks to man as He Wills.

Besides, a being such as the argument speaks of is not the God of revelation Who is the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, but an unspecified Being. There is too much influence from the Greeks - theirs is not a Christian theism, but a pre-Christian kind; and it does not go well with the knowledge of God which is in Christ.

The attempt to prove there is a God is fundamentally irreligious, and fundamentally unChristian.

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Gottle,

What the heck is FWIW ISTM?

As for me I gravitate to philosophical proofs because no matter what approach I take in trying to justify the hope that is within me I end up appealing to the skeptic with reason. And they throw reason right back at me. Why not seek the strongest reasons possible?

You are right, though, in saying that God is in a category by Himself, and that, incidentally, is the key to understanding the ontological argument. He is not so mysterious that we can’t learn things about Him, whether from revelation or reason.

kordially,
Karl

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Mosher,

I’ll use Kreeft and Tacelli’s (Handbook of Christian Apologetics) unpacking of Anslem’s first version:

1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. “God” means “that than which a greater cannot be thought.”
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greeater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence.)
5. But this is impossible, for God is “that than which a greater cannot be thought.”
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

It is generally conceded that if this were the entirety of the ontological arguement, then it fails.

 

[Krebsbach]

But here is the modal version which Malcolm et al find in Prosl. III:

1. The expression “that being which is a greater cannot be thought” (GCB for short) expresses a consistent concept.
2. the GCB cannot be thought of as:
   a. necessaritly nonexistent; or
   b. contingently existing, but only as
   c. necesarily existing.
3. So the GCB can only be thought of as the kind of being that cannot not exist, that must exist.
4. But what must be so is so.
5. Therefore GCB (God) exists.

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Bowser,

I’ll get to more details of the modal arguments as soon as I can, but this is a busy week for me, so it could be a few days. That aside, I want to say: the words “greatest” or “best” or “most perfect” have been thrown around a lot. What do they mean?

Just looking at ‘greater’, x is greater than y insofar as x is, and y is not, "something “which it is better to be than not to be.” Greater means superior, more excellent.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Krebsbach:

Hey Bowser,

Just looking at ‘greater’, x is greater than y insofar as x is, and y is not, "something “which it is better to be than not to be.” Greater means superior, more excellent.

So greater means superior, better, or more excellent… so again, what do those mean? What criteria do we have for judging that x is superior to y?

 

[Krebsbach]

Hey Bowser,

So greater means superior, better, or more excellent… so again, what do those mean? What criteria do we have for judging that x is superior to y?

Criteria depend on the quality in question. But in all cases we are talking about “more than.” I spose we can approach this like in mathematics. X > Y means that there is more value on the X side than on the Y side. Pick your divine attribute, say, knowledge. Some people say that Hillary Clinton, The Smartest Person in the World, is pretty smart and knows lots of stuff. She knows X+ Y. Compared to George Bush, who is usually portrayed as a dunce, her knowledge is greater cuz he only knows X. But compared to God, to whom we attribute all knowledge (A through Z), Hillary is a mere finite mortal.

So no matter what attribute we talk about, it seems we can talk about greater or lesser degrees of the same. Anselm’s definition of God, then, is that he is the one individual who cannot be surpassed no matter what attribute we are talking about. He is the unsurpassable one. He cannot be surpassed by any rival. He can only be surpassed by Himself.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

So greater means superior, better, or more excellent… so again, what do those mean? What criteria do we have for judging that x is superior to y?

the intuitively obvious ones: to be alive is a greater perfection that to be inanimate; to be rational is a greater perfection than not; to be more powerful is a greater perfection than to be less powerful; to have more knowledge is a greater perfection than to have less knowledge; to exist necessarily is a greater perfection than to exist contingently. and so on.

the idea, of course, is not to establish a means for answering questions like is this a better apple than that is a horse? but to give content to the concept of a maximally perfect or great being.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Well… in response to Krebsbach, why, then, do we not say that God has more electric charge than anything else?

And in response to john doran, I’m a little wary of relying on the intuitively obvious.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Well… in response to Krebsbach, why, then, do we not say that God has more electric charge than anything else?

because “electric charge” isn’t a great-making property.

EnterTheBowser:

And in response to john doran, I’m a little wary of relying on the intuitively obvious.

cool. a little wariness goes a long way.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

because “electric charge” isn’t a great-making property.

…

Okay… how do we go about determining which set of properties is relevant to greatness?

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Okay… how do we go about determining which set of properties is relevant to greatness?

examine what your (pre-philosophical) concept of a maximally great being is like.

it’s really that simple.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

examine what your (pre-philosophical) concept of a maximally great being is like.

it’s really that simple.

Oh, I guess that answers my question then. So long as I don’t think too hard, it’s all good.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Oh, I guess that answers my question then. So long as I don’t think too hard, it’s all good.

exactly. you should be used to it by now.

i know what you’re looking for: some kind of forensically precise, irrefutable taxonomy of “greatness”, and i know that you know you’re not going to get it. and, as usual, you believe that my inability to produce something like that is damning for my position. and, as usual, i would point out that you have no better arguments for any of your own beliefs. and, as usual, you will demur and insist that you are burdened with no such inconsistency.

and so it goes…

but if you honestly believe that i don’t think very hard about this stuff, then why bother engaging me in a discussion? i don’t get it.

 

[KBarn]

asteroid:

What in the logic would make us suppose that the uncaused cause is God? God has many attributes, what in the argument would lead us to apply the attributes to an uncaused cause?

What in the logic would need us to suppose that the uncaused cause (God or otherwise) would continue to exist after setting things in motion? Even if the logic DID show an uncaused cause and that the uncaused cause was God, it would only show that such a being used to exist.

What does modern physics/astronomy say about this? I don’t know much but I know some people say that the universe, matter, did not have a beginning. Aquninas requires these people to be wrong but can offer no scientific proof.

Actually, Aquinas says that we cannot prove from reason that matter had a beginning. He says that an eternally existing universe is compatible with the fact of a God because God would still be logically prior to the creation. We know it began in time only through the certainty of revelation. And when we speak of God as the logical ground of causation, existence, etc. there are other proofs that demonstrate that God is not merely a possible being (capable of not existing) but actually a necessary being (incapable of not existing). What we come up with if we follow the logic of classical metaphysicians is that there is a being which is Necessary, the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause, Its own act of existence, and the source of all Being, Beauty, and Goodness. The proofs are logically flawless. The conclusions I just stated. What else could this being be but God?

You say that all proofs are philosophically flawed. I dispute that. But I do not dispute that they are limited because human reason cannot apprehend what God is in His essence. However, the proofs do reach Him by way of His effects. So is it possible to prove, for example, that God is Trinity? No. But it is possible to reach a very elementary understanding of God through pure reason. Simply because a philosophical proof cannot be subjected to a material test (i.e. modern science), that does not mean that it is flawed.

Nonethless, at the very least they demonstrate that the belief in the existence of God is reasonable. And yes, they are fun to argue about.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

exactly. you should be used to it by now.

yourself

i know what you’re looking for: some kind of forensically precise, irrefutable taxonomy of “greatness”, and i know that you know you’re not going to get it.

Well, without that - if this whole idea of greatness is as subjective as taste in art - then I suspect that the ontological argument does not prove what it is intended to prove.

and, as usual, you believe that my inability to produce something like that is damning for my position.

Well, I do not think that the failure of an argument in favor of a position demonstrates that position to be false. This thread isn’t a “Does God exist?” thread; it’s a “Does the ontological argument prove God’s existence?” thread.

and, as usual, i would point out that you have no better arguments for any of your own beliefs. and, as usual, you will demur and insist that you are burdened with no such inconsistency.

and so it goes…

Well, I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you telling me that there are no ultimately non-arbitrary or question-begging positions? Or just that atheism has no such arguments in favor of it?

but if you honestly believe that i don’t think very hard about this stuff, then why bother engaging me in a discussion? i don’t get it.

Being Catholic, I assume you’re familar with interpreting a text as figurative and not literal…

In other words, I was being sarcastic. The point I was making was not that you are an idiot, or that you don’t think long and hard about these issues, but rather the point I make at the start of this post.

 

[KBarn]

## No.

FWIW ISTM that even to attempt to “prove” God’s existence is an obscenity. God is not an object alongside others - God is unique, utterly mysterious: not an object to whom man “does things” - such as proving that the God-object exists - but Subject: the God Who acts and speaks to man as He Wills.

Besides, a being such as the argument speaks of is not the God of revelation Who is the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, but an unspecified Being. There is too much influence from the Greeks - theirs is not a Christian theism, but a pre-Christian kind; and it does not go well with the knowledge of God which is in Christ.

The attempt to prove there is a God is fundamentally irreligious, and fundamentally unChristian.

Unfortunately, you are opposed by Sacred Scripture, the dogmatic teaching of the Church, and by the Angelic Doctor Saint Thomas Aquinas:

The fool hath said in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse (Romans 1:20).

God, the source and end of all things can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural pwer of human reason (Dei Filius II.1).

Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses the faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth (Dei Filius IV.5,6).

It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee” (Isaiah 66:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation (Summa Theologica Ia, q1, a1).

What philosophy can say about God is limited. In fact, all that philosophy can positively predicate of God is that He is His own act of existence (cf Exodus – “I am who am”). Every thing else is predicated by negation (What God is not) or by analogy. This is because God’s essence cannot be known to finite creatures except in the Beatific Vision. Your position that their is too much Greek is an old objection, one, you have seen, that the Church has substantially turned her back on. You see, the Greeks have no claim on a special revelation, but the philosophical worldviews they articulated are useful to Christians to understanding revelation and articulating it reasonably. Too much Greek would mean too much St. Augustine, too much St. Thomas Aquinas, too much theology, too much teaching authority of the Church, etc.

 

[john_doran]

yourself

thanks.

EnterTheBowser:

Well, without that - if this whole idea of greatness is as subjective as taste in art - then I suspect that the ontological argument does not prove what it is intended to prove.

well, it’s not as subjective as aesthetic taste - it’s an objective set of properties, support for which is simply vexed. but support for a lot of propositions is vexed.

EnterTheBowser:

Well, I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you telling me that there are no ultimately non-arbitrary or question-begging positions? Or just that atheism has no such arguments in favor of it?

i’m saying that almost none of your beliefs are capable of being supported with the kind of certainty that you (and every other atheist i have ever encountered) stipulates as necessary for rational (or at least reasonable) theistic belief.

EnterTheBowser:

Being Catholic, I assume you’re familar with interpreting a text as figurative and not literal…

In other words, I was being sarcastic. The point I was making was not that you are an idiot, or that you don’t think long and hard about these issues, but rather the point I make at the start of this post.

sure. except that i don’t really think that “so long as i don’t think about it too hard, it’s all good” is synonymous with “without objective criteria for ‘greatness’, the ontological argument fails”.

but whatever - i took no offense. even if i did think that you believe me to be a moron, it wouldn’t really matter to me - if i cared every time i was judged to be a doofus, i’d be paralyzed…

 

[Krebsbach]

Hi John and Bowser,

I appreciate the foregoing exchange. Bowser, of course, is right to question Anselm’s premises. If they are true then theism is the only logical conclusion.

Anselm’s definition of God is “that than which none greater can be conceived.” It is satisfying from a religious person’s point of view because why would we worship anyone but the bestest? To worship (adore, love, respect, exalt…) any lesser being wouldn’t be reasonalble.

But is the definition free from ambiguity and contradiction? Bowser and great thinkers before him have thought not. Much of the discussion has centered on the meaning of greatness.