Anselms Arguments
Anslem’s ontological argument is one of the most exciting arguments that are as a result of philosophical arguments. The argument examines the concept of God basing its argument on the real existence of God that if we can imagine God then He exists. Whereas there are other different versions of the argument, all of them tend to show that it is self-contradictory to deny that there is an existence of a greatest possible being. The Anslem’s ontological argument states that if something is greater than all other things it must exist and if not, it would not be greater than everything else therefore if we can imagine of God then He exists.
The two claims that Anslem starts his argument with and considers to be incontrovertible are, we all comprehend “something than which nothing greater can be thought” (William 5). The other claim is that a thing can exist in two senses, one being the existence in the mind and a thing that can also exist in the world outside the mind. Anslem’s reasoning of this is that a being that exists outside the mind is much greater than a being that exists only in the mind. This causes a contradiction because it is not possible for something to exist outside the world and not in the mind and this being is God. If something exists in the understanding and there is a possibility that it existed, in reality, means that it would have been possibly greater than it is. God must exist because He is greater than all other things. Anslem’s argument is a reductio argument that seeks to show the truth of a statement by generating an absurd result from its denial.
However there are three main objections to Anslem’s argument which include, Gaunilo’s objections on behalf of the fool, Immanuel Kant rejects the idea that “existence is not a predicate” (William 8) and Aquinas objection “not everyone has the same concept of God”. Gaunilo is not convinced with Anslem’s ontological claims and therefore counter argues them. One of the counter-arguments that he brings forth is the claims that a thing can exist only in the mind and outside of the mind. By the use of the analogy of a painter which is drawn by Anslem, Gaunilo points out that before the artist begins constructing or painting, the work is in the mind and other things are discrete from the understanding that captures them.
Gaunilo argues that art is the mind that creates it contrasting the fact that other things exist independently of the mind making the mind not obligatory for them to exist at all. He argues that when something that exists is independent in the mind, then the understanding of it is a discrete entity from the thing itself. He also envisioned a beautiful Island that he claims has to exist rather than only imagine its existence for it to be completely perfect (William 20). He states that an Island that exists is greater than one that a non-existing one. Guanilo’s objections were that things cannot simply exist just by analyzing that idea but things have to really exist. This means that we cannot show that God exists by simply analyzing that idea, but he has to exist. Anslem responded to Gaulino’s objections defending his argument posing that God cannot be imagined not to exist because that which cannot be imagined to exist is not God. Anslem argued that God was an essential being and cannot be thought of being non-existing because he has always existed and will always exist. That is why Anslem thought Gaunilo as a fool because he could not understand the type of God that Anslem was talking about.
Kant’s objection is on Anslem’s claim that existence is a predicate (William 22). The idea of something being greater if it exists in addition to being thought of can be called the idea of existence of perfection. The arguments of Anslem lie on the idea that if you imagined a being of great excellence, the being would be much greater and perfect if it existed rather than if it did not. He objects this by stating that, for something to be predicated, it must already exist. By this, Kant means that for something to be a predicate, it has to add new information to what is already given about the subject. Therefore Kant concludes Anslem’s argument to be fallacious because it is bound on a false idea that existence is a perfection making existence a real predicate term.
Aquinas based his arguments about the existence of God on experiences. He focuses on the need for some entities that are responsible for all the change that occurs in the world. He states that the entities must be God. He argues about motion and for a thing to be in motion it has to be put in motion by another thing meaning that this process would never end. “It is, therefore, essential to arrive at the first mover, put in motion by no other and this everyone understands to be God “(Aquinas 1). This is because a mover only moves when they are set in motion by the initial mover. He argues about the existence of the “nature of the efficient cause”. There is no possible cause that is comprehended whereby a thing has been known to efficiently cause itself. Hence the significance to agree on a first efficient cause who is God. He also argues about the existence of nature whereby people speak of God as the beginning of existence because if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing that existed. The cause of beings having different characteristics, and having their perfections is all attributed to God. In the governance of the world, some intelligent being who is God is in existence and governs all the natural things.
According to Hume (1), there are arguments about the nature of God and His existence. Demea outlines that God cannot be comprehended by any human and should remain mysterious to us. Philo agrees that the nature of God cannot be comprehended and that His existence is beyond any reasonable doubt. He argues that God has been in existence and the reason being that every effect has to have a cause and therefore there should a vital cause for the world. This ultimate cause is known to be God and he bears every type of perfection that is possible. However, nothing would make us think that his perfection resembles anything we can comprehend meaning that nothing would make us contemplate that we know or have an impression of God. We only use words of his perfection like he is wise but these are only used because of the lack of other words to describe him. We do not know what these features could develop if they were set in the divine perspective. This conclusion is based on reasoning whereby our thoughts are generated by our experience. We do not have an experience of divine features therefore we do not know what God could be like.
Cleanthes does not agree with Demea and Philo because he believes that he can show that despite us not having experiences of the features of God, there are plenty of signs in nature that would make us conclude on what God is like. He argues that even though we have not seen God, “we have seen that the universe looks like a machine and though we do not have experiences about God, we have experienced machines and we know that there is some intelligent designer behind their creation” (Hume 2). So the universe being an elaborate machine compared to any machine, it was created by a designer who is God. He argues that God must be alike to a human who designs machines only that He does it with more perfection. Demea reacts to Cleanthes’s claims and does not approve that God is in any way similar to man.
The arguments about the existence of God bear new claims every time this topic comes up. It is difficult to comprehend the true existence of God and his nature because everyone wants to believe in their understanding. The existence of God has been compared to many things including a machine that makes us think of his existence as supernatural. How would a non-existence being create great things including the universe and all appear to be perfect? This could only be possible if the non- existence being has superpowers that enable Him to have all these perfections.
Works cited
Aquinas, Thomas.” Five ways” from Summa Theologica
Hume David Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
William Rowe, Anslem’s Arguments: The Ontological Argument
