Did Anselm Get It Right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Krebsbach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
John is right to say that not all attributes are relevent to God. There are some, like having electrons, that seem trivial or indifferent, and there are some that seem totally incompatible, like hatefulness.

Anselm doesn’t unpack this. He just says God is whatever is better to be than not to be. Is there a systematic way to define a priori what is good?

kordially,

karl
 
I’ve been listening to the Peter Kreeft talks and in a throw away line (in one of his “proofs for the existence of God” talks he says he does not think the ontological argument works

I have always been impressed by the ontological argument - though I have never read Anselm or Aquinas on it - I’ve just been impressed by the bare bones presentation of it… but I am so impressed with Peter Kreeft at the moment his rejection of it is for me at least cause for reflection

What he seemed to be saying in something of a throw away line was that for him the error lies not in the premises but in the conlususion. The concept of somthing about which nothing greater can be imagined - together with the datum that to exist is greater than non-existance - the right conclusion of this for Kreeft is not that GOD exists but that the CONCEPT of GOD exists

Chewing over this myself at the moment - not sure I agree with the great man or not…
 
40.png
Krebsbach:
John is right to say that not all attributes are relevent to God. There are some, like having electrons, that seem trivial or indifferent, and there are some that seem totally incompatible, like hatefulness.

Anselm doesn’t unpack this. He just says God is whatever is better to be than not to be. Is there a systematic way to define a priori what is good?

kordially,

karl
Click to expand...
Yes, and this is where we begin having more problems because we start speaking in analogy about God. We can say that being is greater than non-being because it is better to exist. We can also say it is better to be just than unjust etc. However, as we know from St. Thomas when we speak about God in such a way we are speaking about a greater dissimilarity because we then have a conception of God that is static in our mind but as Thomas affirms with Anselm God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved.
 
40.png
asteroid:
Problem 1:

There is no good reason for this statement. WHY must it exist? I posit that it doesn’t have to. And just because I could perfectly conceive of something of which there was nothing greater does not mean that thing necessarily exists.

Just because we can posit the idea of an infinite God does not mean that the infinite God has to exist. The idea exists, but the God might or might not.
Click to expand...
I already addressed this problem in my post that you quoted.
40.png
asteroid:
Problem 2:

I cannot conceive God. I can only conceive an idea of God which, no matter how clever I am, is highly imperfect. Therefore something greater than the God I conceive could be conceived.

Problem 3:

I am now conceiving a being greater than God. I am conceiving a being greater than all since it not only from eternity brought forth the God of this universe but it from eternity brought forth the eternal Gods of all the other parallel universes that I am currently conceiving.

Yes, my conception of this ultra-powerful being is very imperfect. But so is my conception, or anyone’s conception, of God.
Click to expand...
These problems actually work to affirm the major premise. Hence your conclusion does not follow.
 
40.png
Krebsbach:
Just curious. Does anyone think St. Anselm’s ontological arguement successfully proves the existence of God?

Kordially,

Karl
Click to expand...
No, not conclusively. But I don’t think it’s valueless either. Duns Scotus’s argument follows somewhat similar lines (working from the logic of the idea of God rather than from God’s works in creation as Aquinas tends to) but is much more rigorous. I know that Descartes also came up with a version of the argument.

I tend to go with Barth’s interpretation (if I remember it correctly–I read the book for my prelims years ago but I forgot a lot of stuff I read that semester, since I read it too fast and without thinking it through enough) that Anselm’s argument is more of a meditation from the point of view of faith than a genuine proof that would convince a non-believer. In other words, Anselm’s argument says something important about how believers view God, but I wouldn’t be likely to trot it out in arguing with an atheist.

Edwin
 
40.png
pilchard:
I’ve been listening to the Peter Kreeft talks and in a throw away line (in one of his “proofs for the existence of God” talks he says he does not think the ontological argument works

I have always been impressed by the ontological argument - though I have never read Anselm or Aquinas on it - I’ve just been impressed by the bare bones presentation of it… but I am so impressed with Peter Kreeft at the moment his rejection of it is for me at least cause for reflection

What he seemed to be saying in something of a throw away line was that for him the error lies not in the premises but in the conlususion. The concept of somthing about which nothing greater can be imagined - together with the datum that to exist is greater than non-existance - the right conclusion of this for Kreeft is not that GOD exists but that the CONCEPT of GOD exists

Chewing over this myself at the moment - not sure I agree with the great man or not…
Click to expand...
Hi Pilchard,

In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics Kreeft identifies the two forms of the argument. Everyone agrees that the first fails. See my post above.

However Kreeft presents the second or modal argument without much comment.
 
Hi Edwin,

Anselm’s writings certainly have a meditational quality to them. The proof is offered by a man of faith, and his definition of God is rooted in the religious idea of God as the one who is worshipped. For Anselm, the question Does God exist? is self-answering.

Folks have been arguing for centuries whether or not this is a great discovery. Anslem’s modern day champions like Charles Hartshorne certainly think it is.

kordially

karl
 
40.png
mosher:
Yes, and this is where we begin having more problems because we start speaking in analogy about God. We can say that being is greater than non-being because it is better to exist. We can also say it is better to be just than unjust etc. However, as we know from St. Thomas when we speak about God in such a way we are speaking about a greater dissimilarity because we then have a conception of God that is static in our mind but as Thomas affirms with Anselm God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved.
Click to expand...
Hi Mosher,

Putting it in terms of the modal argument, it is better to exist necessarily than contingently. If God’s existence depended on chance or circumstance, if his existence were some kind of accident, what kind of God would that be? No He’s gotta exist.

kordially,

karl
 
Hi Edwin,
In other words, Anselm’s argument says something important about how believers view God, but I wouldn’t be likely to trot it out in arguing with an atheist.
Click to expand...
I think I would. It is a fair question to ask an atheist just what his definition of God is. This creates an opportunity to propose Anselm’s. This much can’t be argued; if Anselm’s definition is demonstrated to be meaningful and consistent, then the argument is over.
 
Further musings:

Those who reject the modal argument hold to the dogma that all existing must be contingent. What is the support for this?
 
40.png
Krebsbach:
Further musings:

Those who reject the modal argument hold to the dogma that all existing must be contingent. What is the support for this?
Click to expand...
well, i don’t think that’s necessarily true - they just hold that there is no personal necessary being. they could quite consistently hold that there are other necessary beings, like propositions, numbers, properties, sets, etc.
 
40.png
Krebsbach:
Hi Mosher,

Putting it in terms of the modal argument, it is better to exist necessarily than contingently. If God’s existence depended on chance or circumstance, if his existence were some kind of accident, what kind of God would that be? No He’s gotta exist.

kordially,

karl
Click to expand...
I agree with you here completely, however, it lacks the strict necessity that the non-believer will require. While one can affirm that it is more excellent to exist necessarily than contingently it cannot yet be affirmed that God must needs exist by necessity.
 
40.png
Krebsbach:
Further musings:

Those who reject the modal argument hold to the dogma that all existing must be contingent. What is the support for this?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. While I find it to be irrational there are some who would claim that there is an infinite existence of the cosmos and that further creation of life is a progressive spiration of the natural universe and hence there is no direct necessity of a “Creator in fierrie” (sustainer of being) but that being is self-sustaining.
 
Mornin Mosher,
I agree with you here completely, however, it lacks the strict necessity that the non-believer will require. While one can affirm that it is more excellent to exist necessarily than contingently it cannot yet be affirmed that God must needs exist by necessity.
Click to expand...
But if–big if, I know–one accepts Anselms definition of God and then admits that necessary existence is greater than the contingent mode of existence, then the conclusion must follow.

BTW, we have some folks by the name of Mosher (pronounced with long O) in our little burg. Or are you Mawsher type?

kordially,

Karl
 
Hey John,
john doran:
well, i don’t think that’s necessarily true - they just hold that there is no personal necessary being. they could quite consistently hold that there are other necessary beings, like propositions, numbers, properties, sets, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, their unquestioned dogma is that no individual, no personal being, can exist necessarily. If I were them I would be wary of absolute propositions like that. That all individuals aren’t necessarily existing is obvious. But that there must be no necessarily existing individuals isn’t necessarily true. There still is the logical possibility of some individual who exist necessarily. The opposite of all is not necessarily none; it could be some.
 
40.png
Krebsbach:
Yes, their unquestioned dogma is that no individual, no personal being, can exist necessarily. If I were them I would be wary of absolute propositions like that. That all individuals aren’t necessarily existing is obvious. But that there must be no necessarily existing individuals isn’t necessarily true. There still is the logical possibility of some individual who exist necessarily. The opposite of all is not necessarily none; it could be some.
Click to expand...
i agree.
 
So I’ll ax Anselm’s critics again: Why can there be no individual who is necessarily existing? Why must all be contingently existing?
 
I think that Anselm’s biggest contribution to the whole God debate is that he narrowed it down to just options: 1) God exists necessarily or 2) the whole idea of God is nonsense. There are no other options. I don’t think there can be much debate that he accomplished this much.
 
Karl,

Are you who I think you are? Are you Karl Schudt the philosopher extraordinaire of the SW Chicago Suburbs?

Whoever you are you have helped me understand a great deal more about Anselm’s Ontological argument. Thank you.

Carson Daniel Lauffer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top