I have always found this argument to be initially difficult to grasp however once understood it seems to be one of the most ambitious arguments from natural theology and potentially one of the most powerful. This is because this argument is the only argument for God that is attempting to be a deductive proof by definition, while other arguments seek to be based on induction. It is interesting how Anselm is saying that if the being you are imagining doesn't exist then that is by definition not God and he seeks to demonstrate some connection between out ability to conceive of something and the existence of a thing. I prefer the modal ontological argument by Alvin Plantinga because I can see how the idea that existence is a quality to be problematic. The contemporary version of this argument seeks to get away from this problem. I find it interesting to see how Anselm tries to address the potential counter to his argument of being able to conceive of God not existing.
I find it very puzzling and confusing as to how Anselm approaches the existence of God as He is and exists. He begins to speak of how God has to exist because he is in our minds and is therefore in reality, then says that He is "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought". The premise that God is the most supreme entity that is conceivable to our minds, yet exists in an "inaccessible light" seems self-contradictory and confusing. Also, it is puzzling to me it is possible to conceive God in our minds as a supreme and perfect entity, whilst being unable to comprehend His perfection. We as humans, are primarily able to conceive concepts and ideas through experience and exposure to such things. Intangible things, such as mathematics - which contains abstract elements that cannot be modeled accurately in the physical world, are left to conception of the mind; however I feel that what Anselm argues for is largely of substance because it is shrouded in ambiguity and vagueness that cannot easily be reconciled with. Maybe it is just the language and word choice he uses which leaves me in confusion, as I am unable to wholly embrace or refute what he says.
I totally agree, I feel like his word choice gives me confusion of what he is trying to say. I thought I understood when he said that we can have a thought in our mind but it could not exist. Like when he gave the painting example. He has the picture in his mind and it isn't real yet. But, when he puts the paint to the paper, and the product is done that now it is real because it's now visible. When you relate that with God how is it that we could see his physical form?
In Anslem's reading the most difficult to understand for me was his argument with Gaunilo. What I got from Gaunilo is that we can think about something that is possibly greater than us and it can exists but without evidence it only exists in our mind. Anslem's reply is hard to understand but, what I got from it was that if its possible to create and understand a thought of what God is like than you shouldn't doubt it's existence. Which I think is a weak reply.
1) Anselm ultimately argues that because God is the greatest thing that can be thought, to think of him only as existing in your mind is not indeed the greatest thing, because something that exists both in your mind and in reality is greater than that which only exists in your mind. This is a really good argument for the time, however it presupposed a definition of good that is not self-evident. I don't think Anselm or Aquinas give good explanations on how God's definition is self evident enough to defend the former argument. 2) If you forget all scientific data and theory since the Enlightenment before reading Article 3 in this chapter of Summa Thelogiae, one can see how persuasive this argument was. Aquinas argues that because of our knowledge of cause and effect, we know that all effects have causes. This supposes the idea there first had to be an 'uncaused cause' (God). He does a good bit of logic and philosophy to sort this out, but it's abundantly clear how persuasive this argument must have been at the time. During my reading of Article 3, I couldn't help internally screaming "THE BIG BANG" and "EVOLUTION" and almost every paragraph.
I like Aquinas's third reason of God existence in article 3, because something has to exists beforehand in order for other things to come into existence. Im confused on how he replies to why evil exist, because I believe with his reasoning he is basically saying if good already exists in the world through God, nothing can prevent evil from manifesting.
I completely agree with what Aquinas's stated in article 3. If there was nothing beforehand, how would anything grow or become the finished product? The fire example I was able to catch onto easily to understand his logic. In regards to the evils he speaks upon, I was confused on that as well. Even though that there is good from God, the evil that is brought upon he could still find good out of those wrong things. Evil is going to happen regardless of how much good God brings us.
Something about the second premise of Anselm ontological argument seems a little fishy to me. Also, I am slightly confused about how Anselm deals with his objectors, it does seem to make a little sense to my mind that the argument can not be used to argue for the existence of santa or an island because of the definition he uses for God. As for the cosmological argument, there are several obvious problems for instance the issue of an expiation for the origin of the universe at all, a point Bertrand Russlle made when he proposed that the universe might just exist. Also assuming God to be completely necessary just seems faulty, however this is just an objection that Kant pointed out.
1. Aquinas' third reason for God's existence in particularly interesting because it logically insists that there must be a first cause that started the chain effect of all other causes. However, as someone has already pointed out earlier in this thread, since that argument has been made, there have been more likely or scientifically supported explanations for this first cause other than that of "God". 2. In Anselm's first argument he asserts that something that exists only in the mind is inferior to that which exists both in the mind and in reality. From this he reasons that God must exist both in the mind and in reality because if God is the greatest of all things, this must be true of Him as well. However, the problem that I have with this argument is that it is arguing from a conception of God to be a fact that supports the claim that God exists both in the mind and in reality.
Like the last reading assignment, I think Aquinas is easier to read because of his structure, but I am concerned with his claim to the self-evidence of God. Along with the prior text by Anselm, Aquinas is defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be signified.” Which is a fine definition, however it only proves that a maximum, supreme, or ultimate thing exists, and not that this thing has any other characteristics of God. It seems to me that Aquinas is establishing his argument for a greatest thing, and then calls this thig God because there is no other word in his vocabulary to call it.
The section subtitled “Article 3: Does God Exist?” interestingly contains some of the early versions of the argument for God that I have heard talked about in other eras of philosophy, for example, God as the unmoved mover. I am interested in the movement at the very end where Aquinas references Augustine to say, in response to the existence of evil, that God’s good is limitless and He permits evil because He can make good come of it. Despite being vaguely familiar with many of the other arguments in these texts, this is not one that I recognize. Most of my experience with the explanation for evil despite God is called the “absence” of God. I suppose in hindsight this permission of evil is the most logical way to solve the omnipotence and omni-benevolence paradox that referring to the absence of God only postpones rather than avoids.
The assumptions stated early in Anselm's writing seem peculiar to me. In a recent paper I wrote in PHI 490, I argued that some versions of simulation theory are a sort of new 'creation theory'. It seemed that versions with a creator were similar to the Judeo-Christian stories. What disturbs some people about simulation theory is that our world might not be real; it exists apart from the original world; it was created by the real. It seems to me that 'real' need not be afforded special status. If we are lucky enough to live in the original real world, our everyday experience is a simulation of that world; it is a small and warped mirror giving us access to a unbelievably, incalculably small portion of the available data. Even the scientific models we have developed from our limited vantage point suggest that the number of dimensions of that mirror are less than the number that exist. It is possible that, if the extra dimensions, including time, exist in reality as our three dimensional space exists for us (and what does that even mean without an observer, an observer whose individuality and consciousness may merely be a result of the simulation that they are), than we are wrong about any assertions we make about what is real because they will always be limited by our inability to create a large enough frame; a frame that can never contain the whole. Everything we say or experience exists in the mind alone, even when it is perceived across simulations. That is why I find Anselm's argument odd. He argues for God's existence by proposing that God is the greatest, that a thing that exists only in the mind is never as great as a thing that exists in reality and that God must exist in reality because he is the greatest. I suppose I should mention that simulation theory seems a trivial claim to me because, whether or not we live in the 'real' world (the original world), we cannot escape the limits of the simulation that is our body. This is why the concept of the greatest also seems doomed to dwell only in our minds.
During the reading, I found it difficult to keep up with Anselm and what he thought about if God truly existed. What I did find interesting from Anselm though is what he said about the Inaccessible light in which he dwells. The light when he speaks reminds me of the light of the after life. The white light that is a long tunnel, and at the end you finally meet God. Right now the light is too bright, and he cannot see much. But, he knows God is there in his sight. I wonder if does not understand this light because he is still alive and God doesn't want to reveal himself.
1. I wonder if the fact that Anselm assumes that God exists (as evidenced by addressing "Him" in the Proslogion) gives him an unfair advantage in arguing for his existence. I don't necessarily see why it is greater to exist that to not exist. 2. I applaud that Aquinas gives a definition of God: "that than which nothing greater can be signified". I'm getting hung up on what exactly it means to be greater and what it means to be signified.
I thought the Arguments from God’s existence revealed an interesting perspective that I have never thought about. Anselm argued to know the concept of God is to believe in him. If you did not know the concept you wouldn’t believe but since you know of God you believe in him. He is arguing knowing about the subject is believing in it. The argument is interesting because it really makes you think if there are other phenomena one could argue is like this.
When the Anselm spoke about the story if the underwater island I found it to be interesting. He believed because you cannot prove it is not true you must believe in it. The only way you could not believe in it is if you had proof it did not exist or if you never heard about it. I feel like this argument reveals how much times have changed. Nowadays you need proof for somethings existence for it to be true. The responsibility of figuring out the truth is in the hands of believers not non-believers.
I have always found this argument to be initially difficult to grasp however once understood it seems to be one of the most ambitious arguments from natural theology and potentially one of the most powerful. This is because this argument is the only argument for God that is attempting to be a deductive proof by definition, while other arguments seek to be based on induction. It is interesting how Anselm is saying that if the being you are imagining doesn't exist then that is by definition not God and he seeks to demonstrate some connection between out ability to conceive of something and the existence of a thing. I prefer the modal ontological argument by Alvin Plantinga because I can see how the idea that existence is a quality to be problematic. The contemporary version of this argument seeks to get away from this problem. I find it interesting to see how Anselm tries to address the potential counter to his argument of being able to conceive of God not existing.
ReplyDeleteI find it very puzzling and confusing as to how Anselm approaches the existence of God as He is and exists. He begins to speak of how God has to exist because he is in our minds and is therefore in reality, then says that He is "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought". The premise that God is the most supreme entity that is conceivable to our minds, yet exists in an "inaccessible light" seems self-contradictory and confusing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is puzzling to me it is possible to conceive God in our minds as a supreme and perfect entity, whilst being unable to comprehend His perfection. We as humans, are primarily able to conceive concepts and ideas through experience and exposure to such things. Intangible things, such as mathematics - which contains abstract elements that cannot be modeled accurately in the physical world, are left to conception of the mind; however I feel that what Anselm argues for is largely of substance because it is shrouded in ambiguity and vagueness that cannot easily be reconciled with. Maybe it is just the language and word choice he uses which leaves me in confusion, as I am unable to wholly embrace or refute what he says.
I totally agree, I feel like his word choice gives me confusion of what he is trying to say. I thought I understood when he said that we can have a thought in our mind but it could not exist. Like when he gave the painting example. He has the picture in his mind and it isn't real yet. But, when he puts the paint to the paper, and the product is done that now it is real because it's now visible. When you relate that with God how is it that we could see his physical form?
DeleteIn Anslem's reading the most difficult to understand for me was his argument with Gaunilo. What I got from Gaunilo is that we can think about something that is possibly greater than us and it can exists but without evidence it only exists in our mind. Anslem's reply is hard to understand but, what I got from it was that if its possible to create and understand a thought of what God is like than you shouldn't doubt it's existence. Which I think is a weak reply.
ReplyDelete1) Anselm ultimately argues that because God is the greatest thing that can be thought, to think of him only as existing in your mind is not indeed the greatest thing, because something that exists both in your mind and in reality is greater than that which only exists in your mind. This is a really good argument for the time, however it presupposed a definition of good that is not self-evident. I don't think Anselm or Aquinas give good explanations on how God's definition is self evident enough to defend the former argument.
ReplyDelete2) If you forget all scientific data and theory since the Enlightenment before reading Article 3 in this chapter of Summa Thelogiae, one can see how persuasive this argument was. Aquinas argues that because of our knowledge of cause and effect, we know that all effects have causes. This supposes the idea there first had to be an 'uncaused cause' (God). He does a good bit of logic and philosophy to sort this out, but it's abundantly clear how persuasive this argument must have been at the time. During my reading of Article 3, I couldn't help internally screaming "THE BIG BANG" and "EVOLUTION" and almost every paragraph.
I like Aquinas's third reason of God existence in article 3, because something has to exists beforehand in order for other things to come into existence. Im confused on how he replies to why evil exist, because I believe with his reasoning he is basically saying if good already exists in the world through God, nothing can prevent evil from manifesting.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Aquinas's stated in article 3. If there was nothing beforehand, how would anything grow or become the finished product? The fire example I was able to catch onto easily to understand his logic. In regards to the evils he speaks upon, I was confused on that as well. Even though that there is good from God, the evil that is brought upon he could still find good out of those wrong things. Evil is going to happen regardless of how much good God brings us.
DeleteSomething about the second premise of Anselm ontological argument seems a little fishy to me. Also, I am slightly confused about how Anselm deals with his objectors, it does seem to make a little sense to my mind that the argument can not be used to argue for the existence of santa or an island because of the definition he uses for God.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cosmological argument, there are several obvious problems for instance the issue of an expiation for the origin of the universe at all, a point Bertrand Russlle made when he proposed that the universe might just exist. Also assuming God to be completely necessary just seems faulty, however this is just an objection that Kant pointed out.
1. Aquinas' third reason for God's existence in particularly interesting because it logically insists that there must be a first cause that started the chain effect of all other causes. However, as someone has already pointed out earlier in this thread, since that argument has been made, there have been more likely or scientifically supported explanations for this first cause other than that of "God".
ReplyDelete2. In Anselm's first argument he asserts that something that exists only in the mind is inferior to that which exists both in the mind and in reality. From this he reasons that God must exist both in the mind and in reality because if God is the greatest of all things, this must be true of Him as well. However, the problem that I have with this argument is that it is arguing from a conception of God to be a fact that supports the claim that God exists both in the mind and in reality.
Like the last reading assignment, I think Aquinas is easier to read because of his structure, but I am concerned with his claim to the self-evidence of God. Along with the prior text by Anselm, Aquinas is defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be signified.” Which is a fine definition, however it only proves that a maximum, supreme, or ultimate thing exists, and not that this thing has any other characteristics of God. It seems to me that Aquinas is establishing his argument for a greatest thing, and then calls this thig God because there is no other word in his vocabulary to call it.
ReplyDeleteThe section subtitled “Article 3: Does God Exist?” interestingly contains some of the early versions of the argument for God that I have heard talked about in other eras of philosophy, for example, God as the unmoved mover. I am interested in the movement at the very end where Aquinas references Augustine to say, in response to the existence of evil, that God’s good is limitless and He permits evil because He can make good come of it. Despite being vaguely familiar with many of the other arguments in these texts, this is not one that I recognize. Most of my experience with the explanation for evil despite God is called the “absence” of God. I suppose in hindsight this permission of evil is the most logical way to solve the omnipotence and omni-benevolence paradox that referring to the absence of God only postpones rather than avoids.
The assumptions stated early in Anselm's writing seem peculiar to me. In a recent paper I wrote in PHI 490, I argued that some versions of simulation theory are a sort of new 'creation theory'. It seemed that versions with a creator were similar to the Judeo-Christian stories. What disturbs some people about simulation theory is that our world might not be real; it exists apart from the original world; it was created by the real. It seems to me that 'real' need not be afforded special status. If we are lucky enough to live in the original real world, our everyday experience is a simulation of that world; it is a small and warped mirror giving us access to a unbelievably, incalculably small portion of the available data. Even the scientific models we have developed from our limited vantage point suggest that the number of dimensions of that mirror are less than the number that exist. It is possible that, if the extra dimensions, including time, exist in reality as our three dimensional space exists for us (and what does that even mean without an observer, an observer whose individuality and consciousness may merely be a result of the simulation that they are), than we are wrong about any assertions we make about what is real because they will always be limited by our inability to create a large enough frame; a frame that can never contain the whole. Everything we say or experience exists in the mind alone, even when it is perceived across simulations. That is why I find Anselm's argument odd. He argues for God's existence by proposing that God is the greatest, that a thing that exists only in the mind is never as great as a thing that exists in reality and that God must exist in reality because he is the greatest. I suppose I should mention that simulation theory seems a trivial claim to me because, whether or not we live in the 'real' world (the original world), we cannot escape the limits of the simulation that is our body. This is why the concept of the greatest also seems doomed to dwell only in our minds.
ReplyDeleteand, in the scenario where the conscious mind is the product of the simulation, concepts are our only 'real' property.
DeleteDuring the reading, I found it difficult to keep up with Anselm and what he thought about if God truly existed. What I did find interesting from Anselm though is what he said about the Inaccessible light in which he dwells. The light when he speaks reminds me of the light of the after life. The white light that is a long tunnel, and at the end you finally meet God. Right now the light is too bright, and he cannot see much. But, he knows God is there in his sight. I wonder if does not understand this light because he is still alive and God doesn't want to reveal himself.
ReplyDelete1. I wonder if the fact that Anselm assumes that God exists (as evidenced by addressing "Him" in the Proslogion) gives him an unfair advantage in arguing for his existence. I don't necessarily see why it is greater to exist that to not exist.
ReplyDelete2. I applaud that Aquinas gives a definition of God: "that than which nothing greater can be signified". I'm getting hung up on what exactly it means to be greater and what it means to be signified.
I thought the Arguments from God’s existence revealed an interesting perspective that I have never thought about. Anselm argued to know the concept of God is to believe in him. If you did not know the concept you wouldn’t believe but since you know of God you believe in him. He is arguing knowing about the subject is believing in it. The argument is interesting because it really makes you think if there are other phenomena one could argue is like this.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Anselm spoke about the story if the underwater island I found it to be interesting. He believed because you cannot prove it is not true you must believe in it. The only way you could not believe in it is if you had proof it did not exist or if you never heard about it. I feel like this argument reveals how much times have changed. Nowadays you need proof for somethings existence for it to be true. The responsibility of figuring out the truth is in the hands of believers not non-believers.