The argument begins with defining God; "that than which nothing greater can be concieved". This means that God is the greatest concievable being and it is therefore impossible for anyone to imagine anything greater. Anselm infers that we all have this idea of God in our minds, and we know what the definition of God is. As it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone, God must therefore exist. This argument can be used to suggest why it is foolish to state "there is no God" as it explains how the statement itself proves that the speaker has a concept of God and is aware that they are referring to "something" specific by using the word 'God'. By admitting you have the concept of God in your mind (regardless of whether or not you claim to believe in him) and the definition of God being the greatest possible being, he must therefore exist in reality as well as just the mind.
Gaunilo criticises this version of Anselm's argument in his thesis entitled 'On Behalf of the Fool'. Gaunilo argues that you cannot simply define things into existence. He states how "An object can hardly or never be conceived according to the word alone" meaning that just because we can conceive the word 'God' to mean 'greatest conceivable being', it doesn't have to mean that he exists. To explain this further Gaunilo uses an analogy of an island to replicate and essentially parody Anselm's argument through replacing the word God with island:
- My island is the island than which no greater island can be conceived
- I have an idea of my island
- It it greater to exist in reality than in concept
- Therefore my island exists
Anselm responds to Gaunilo with the claim that using an island in place of God is an unfair comparison. Infact, anything would be an unfair comparison as God is necessary (doesn't rely on anything to exist) and existence is therefore part of his essence, whereas everything else in the world is contingent (relies on something else to exist) and therefore may or may not exist. In order to take this into account and make it clearer, Anselm revised his argument and produced a second version.
Anselm begins with the same premise, that nothing greater than God can be conceived. He continues by saying that a God who cannot be thought of as not existing is greater than a God who can be thought of as not existing. In other words, a necessary God is greater than a contingent God, as a necessary God must exist by definition whereas a contingent God could be thought of as either existing or not existing. Anselm deduces from this that if God exists in the mind alone then he is not God, as he would not be necessary and subsequently would not be the greatest being. Therefore, he concludes, God can't not exist i.e God exists.
Generally speaking, spot on. The second two thirds are definitely stronger than the first couple of sentences (see below).
ReplyDeleteSome style issues:
Your first two sentences are very heavy: "Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God is written by his philosophy of Fides Quarens Intellectum which translates to Faith Seeking Understanding. This means that Anselm's argument begins from a theistic stance, with the aim to further establish and validify God's existence using deductive reasoning to highlight how an absence of belief is foolish, rather than seeking to prove his existence to those which don't believe in him."
You could write it as, 'Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God is written from the position of Fides Quaerens Intellectum. This means that Anselm is writing from a theistic standpoint and his concern is to further understand the God in which he believes. His argument is not intended to convert the unbeliever.'
As a general point, shorter sentences are better. Anselm is not trying to 'establish' or 'validify' the existence of God, although these sound like good technical words; be careful that you don't lose accuracy in your work for the sake of using impressive words!