Saint Anselm’s Ontological Argument Analysis

perfection Anselms ontological Argument AnalysisBarbara NallsThesisIn this paper I forget investigate holy man Anselms ontological Argument in sight to make an attempt at micturateing approximately clear evidence to cause this question Did shrine Anselm believe in beau ideal?Argument reverence Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109), is the creator of the ontological argument. Saint Anselms ontological argument is classifi fitted from early(a) arguments that attempt to prove that it is the introduction of matinee idol, the creator, and no. but some abstract entity that is hold upence defined. Saint Anselms argument reads as followsIn my opinion, while Saint Anselm was a deep thinker, he was even more(prenominal) so, in this case, a deeper writer. I believe the common reader should be able to see the soundness of an argument, so that they may be able toaccept or reject the writers position. I think the ontological Argument of Saint Anselm is unclear because the writing style is confusing and it take to be more understandable. Maybe a simpler script or updated random variable of Saint Anselms message would clarify his position to ordinary readers wish well me. Based on Cliffords comment It is never lawful to stifle a doubt, for either it endure be honestly answered by means of the dubiousness already make, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete, 2(Encountering the Real,pg. 502).Speak of the devil Saint Anselm does seduce a second version of his ontological Argument, and it statesWith all that being said, this version of Saint Anselms argument is also ab break through as clear as mud However, by definition, divinity is a being than which none great can be imagined, is now more in good order put as followsObjection(s)Along with his 1st Argument, Saint Anselms second version of the ontological Argument is also believed to have failed in its efforts to all the centering state his position to his readers/audience, accor ding to some of his peers. The following names argon some of Saint Anselms peers along with the some other writers who spy their objections to the clarity and understandability of his Ontological Argument.Monk, Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a contemporary of Saint Anselm, convey an important criticism against Saint Anselms Ontological Argument. Monk Gaunilo states that Saint Anselm is basically defining things into existence. Monk Gaunilo remarks that he believes this practice is unacceptable. Monk Gaunilo thinks that by using Saint Anselms method of argument authors could simply employment such tactics in an attempt to argue and even hold up the existence of all sorts of non-existent things.Saint Thomas doubting Thomas (1224-1274) wrote that Gods existence is self-evident. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that since m whatever people have different thoughts of God, Saint Anselms Ontological Argument works lone(prenominal) to sway those people who would define the inclination of God the same way or have the same concepts of God. In Saint Thomas Aquinass view he believed, even if everyone had the same concept of God it does not in that locationfore follow that he understands what the word signifies exists actually, but all that it exists mentally. In Saint Thomas Aquinas understanding he points out that when we try to connect the phrase a being than which none great can be imagined with more familiar predictable concepts they dont help us to get an in depth view of God.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) directs his celebrated objection at the third premise of Saint Anselms Ontological Argument. This is where Saint Anselm makes the telephone call that a being that exists as an idea in someones mind as well as in pragmatism, is greater than if that being exists only as an idea in just their mind alone. Based on Saint Anselms premise estimate three, existence is whats unders in additiond to be a great-making property or, as sometimes referred to, a perfection. Premise th ree thus explains that (a) existence is a property and (b) to characterize existence makes a thing better, if all things are equal, than it would have been otherwise. Immanuel Kant rejects premise three on the ground that, as a purely formal matter, existence does not function as a predicate. While Kants criticism is phrased a bit obscurely in terms of thelogicof predicates and copulas, it also makes a conceivable metaphysical point. Existence is not a property like the way that being red is a property of an apple. Instead existence is a precondition for the exemplification of things in the sense that, it is not possible for a non-existent thing to exemplify any properties because there is nothing that such a property can sting itself to. Nothing has no qualities whatsoever. To say thatxexemplifies or instantiates a propertyPis hence to suppose thatxexists. So, with this line of reasoning, existence isnt a great-making property because it is not a property at all it is rather a m etaphysically takeful condition for the instantiation of any properties. Okay, Immanuel Kant also writes like Saint Anselm, way too deep for the poor little old average readers like meResponses(s)In response to Saint Anselms Ontological Argument, other writers have made modal versions to express their thoughts rough his ontological argument, below are ii of those responses.The first response to Saint Anselms Ontological Argument comes from (Anselms Ontological Argument,Philosophical Review, vol.69, no.1 (1960), 41-62 by Norman Malcolm). According to Malcolms view, the existence of an unlimited being is said to be either rationally essential or logically not possible. Norman Malcolms argument for this claim is either that an unlimited being exists or that an unlimited being does not exist by his logic there are no other possibilities. Reducing Malcoms argument to its basic elements it would read as followsThe following(a) response to Saint Anselms Ontological Argument is from Al vin Plantinga, (God, Freedom, and Evil(New York Harper and Row, 1974). Plantinga complains that Saint Anselms argument is remarkably unconvincing if not downright abominable he says that it looks too much like a parlor tucker out or some kind of word magic riddle. Not surprisingly, Alvin Plantinga shares my feelings about Saint Anselms writings.Finally, here is my response to Saint Anselms Ontological Argument. In just my lowly opinion, I think a person who writes in riddles is not out to teach as much as they are out to prove how smart they are. God does not need our help to show his existence, we need His help to see that He exists. This to me is like a child trying to prove they have parents, the process is self-evident. I am, so they areConclusionPer Anselm A being that of necessityexists in reality is greater than a being that does notnecessarilyexist.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine som ething that is greater than God.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.God exists in the mind as an idea.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.In reaction to the above riddle, I investigated several sources to establish clear evidence to answer the question, Did Saint Anselm believe in GOD? My findings were Saint Anselm wrote, in his 1st version of his ontological argument there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. 1(Anselm, http//www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/). In the 2nd version of his Ontological Argument Saint Anselm states God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived. And God assuredly exists so truly, that it cannot be conceived not to exist There is, then, so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived no t to exist and this being thou art, O Lord, our God. So the answer is YES, Anselm believed that God does exist.Citations1(Anselm, http//www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/)2(Encountering the Real,pg. 502)3(Malcolm, Norman, Anselms Ontological Argument,Philosophical Review, vol. 69, no. 1 (1960), 41-62)4(Plantinga, Alvin,God, Freedom, and Evil(New York Harper and Row, 1974)BibliographyAnselm, St.,Anselms Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2ndEd. (La Salle, IL Open Court Publishing Co., 1962)Anselm Ontological Argument for Gods Existence, http//www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/Davenport, Ronald. Saintleo, Modules 1- 4 Lecture Notes.Aquinas, Thomas, St.,Summa Theologica(1a Q2), Whether the Existence of God is Self- Evident (Thomas more than Publishing, 1981)Kant, Immanuel,Critique of Pure Reason, translated by J.M.D. Meiklejohn (New York Colonial Press, 1900)Malcolm, Norman, Anselms Ontological Argument,Philosophical Review, vol. 69, no. 1 (1960), 41-62Plantinga, Alvin,God, Freedom, and Evil(New Y ork Harper and Row, 1974)Saint Leo University. Encountering the Real. 2013 ed. New York Cengage Custom. Print