St Anselm Ontological Proof

  • Thread starter Thread starter smad0142
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

smad0142

Guest
Can someone please help explain this proof to me? I really doubt that it is as good as everyone says it is. I mean I can think of plenty incredible things, but that does not mean they exist. But I figure since some many people talk about how great this proof is there must be something to it so please help me to understand it.
 
Can someone please help explain this proof to me? I really doubt that it is as good as everyone says it is. I mean I can think of plenty incredible things, but that does not mean they exist. But I figure since some many people talk about how great this proof is there must be something to it so please help me to understand it.
well its pretty simple.

It states

A: God is perfect
B: Something that exists is more perfect that something that doesnt exist
.’.C: God exists

Though the argument is Begging the question as it uses properties of the divine that he is trying to prove as a premise in his argument, which is a logical no no.
 
Strictly speaking it’s an invalid argument, for the reason you stated - existence in the mind does not imply existence in reality.

In case this helps, here are some renditions of the argument.

Anselm, from Wikipedia:
  1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
    1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
  2. Being is greater than not being
  3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
  4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
    Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists
Thomas Aquinas, from Summa Theologiae:
[Objection:] Those things are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known, which the Philosopher (1 Poster. iii) says is true of the first principles of demonstration. Thus, when the nature of a whole and of a part is known, it is at once recognized that every whole is greater than its part. But as soon as the signification of the word “God” is understood, it is at once seen that God exists. For by this word is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word “God” is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually. Therefore the proposition “God exists” is self-evident.
[Response:] Perhaps not everyone who hears this word “God” understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word “God” is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist.
Is this helping?
 
I’m still just convinced its a terrible argument. Am I missing something?
 
You’re missing a lot. Please refer to two other recent threads on the subject in this forum.

“The Greatest Proof (pun intended)…” and “The Ontological Proof”

The first has much more to say, the second is just getting started. 🙂
 
You’re missing a lot. Please refer to two other recent threads on the subject in this forum.

“The Greatest Proof (pun intended)…” and “The Ontological Proof”

The first has much more to say, the second is just getting started. 🙂
Sorry, the second one is called “Ontological Argument”.
 
Here’s MY logic:
If God exists He is by deffinition perfect
If he is perfect His teachings are perfect
His teachings say that we need faith
We would not need faith if there was proof of God
Therefore God cannot be proven to exist.
 
Here’s MY logic:
If God exists He is by deffinition perfect
If he is perfect His teachings are perfect
His teachings say that we need faith
We would not need faith if there was proof of God
Therefore God cannot be proven to exist.
I disagree. There are many philosophical i.e. natural proofs for the existence of God. The grace of Faith in necessary to believe in the God of Divine Revelation but not merely to realize and have some conception of the God of Nature, even though they are the same God just understood in different ways and through different means.
 
You’re missing a lot. Please refer to two other recent threads on the subject in this forum.

“The Greatest Proof (pun intended)…” and “The Ontological Proof”

The first has much more to say, the second is just getting started. 🙂
The argument only works if you reject God on the principle that once could conceive of something greater than God. Many atheists reject God because they’re is no scientific proof.
 
Here’s MY logic:
If God exists He is by deffinition perfect
If he is perfect His teachings are perfect
His teachings say that we need faith
We would not need faith if there was proof of God
Therefore God cannot be proven to exist.
Anyone else find this sort of fideism ridiculous?? Why don’t you just take your argument a step further?! :
  1. Belief in God requires “faith”.
  2. If we have any sort of evidence of God whatsoever, then “faith” becomes obsolete.
  3. We have no need of the Bible or the Catholic Church.
 
Anyone else find this sort of fideism ridiculous?? Why don’t you just take your argument a step further?! :
  1. Belief in God requires “faith”.
  2. If we have any sort of evidence of God whatsoever, then “faith” becomes obsolete.
  3. We have no need of the Bible or the Catholic Church.
I find it pathetic yet amusing. How’s this version:


  1. *]I haven’t bothered looking up the technical definition of the theological virtue of “faith”.
    *]In popular music, “faith” denotes irrational optimism.
    *]Therefore faith in God is irrational optimism.
 
I find it pathetic yet amusing. How’s this version:


  1. *]I haven’t bothered looking up the technical definition of the theological virtue of “faith”.
    *]In popular music, “faith” denotes irrational optimism.
    *]Therefore faith in God is irrational optimism.

  1. ouch! This would actually be a perfectly sound argument for many people of ‘faith’ though.
 
I am being serious. I do not believe there will ever be unquestionable proof of God’s existence.
 
I only read the first two chapters of John’s good but incredibly long source (thanks for that by the way) and what I read seemed to prove that there must be a higher cause to our actions but I still think that a determined Athiest could find flaw in it. I still think you need a certain degree of Faith to be sure of God’s existance.

When I have time I’ll try to read the rest and perhaps it will change my mind. 😃
 
Anyone else find this sort of fideism ridiculous?? Why don’t you just take your argument a step further?! :
  1. Belief in God requires “faith”.
  2. If we have any sort of evidence of God whatsoever, then “faith” becomes obsolete.
  3. We have no need of the Bible or the Catholic Church.
Very good point, Dostoyevskyfan.

God bless,
jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top