The second premise means this greatest possible being is either an imaginary being that one has thought of or, a being that we not only is not only thought of but also exists.
Philosophy The daddy of Ontological quarrels is often regarded as Anselm of Canterbury who was simply a monk and abbot of Bec in Normandy, and Archbishop of Canterbury from to Anselm when speaking about topics with his pupils mainly focused on the type and the life of God.
Throughout history there have been many disagreements over whether Anselm's argument is sound and actually valid. Perhaps one of the most famous counter arguments against Anselm's famous Proslogion II is that of Gaunilo.
However his counter-top debate against Anselm has been refuted to the point where Anselm continues to be regarded to get been accurate. Centuries later a man by the name of Immanuel Kant comes up to struggle Anselm's theory regarding the presence of God.
Perhaps Immanuel Kant's most well-known theory is the Critique of Pure Reason in which Kant is said to have finally brought down Anselm's discussion. However just like any other discussion, Kant has many people who are against his debate as well.
The struggle to prove the living of God has truly gone on practically because the labor and birth of man and to be able to truly verify the living of God it must be achieved through logic and reasoning in order to convince the people, this is what Anselm was the first ever to due.
To become able to determine whether Anselm's discussion is in fact audio and valid it must be compared to other ontological quarrels and undoubtedly compared to counter quarrels. A deep knowledge of Anselm's Proslogion II is needed in order to better understand where in fact the flaws are available.
After examining his argument it'll be in comparison to any fans of the ontological debate to check for validity and lastly contrasted against Kant's discussion to check on for soundness.
Along with the compare it will become clear concerning whether Anselm's debate is acoustics and valid, and not simply based on emotions. The Proslogion was written as a response to Gaunilo's Lost Island discussion where he preceded to debunk Anselm's discussion specifically his reasoning as to the reasons God must exist.
Anselm replies and instantly it looks like Anselm ignores Gaunilo's argument however, after close inspection Anselm does indeed respond to the criticisms of Gaunilo. Many philosophers treat the Proslogion II as a standalone discussion.
At the start of Anselm's discussion he starts with "you who give understanding to beliefs" and asks God to help him with the understanding "you are, even as we consider you are and that you will be what we believe that you to definitely be".
This would point out that Anselm's argument will get started from trust. Anselm goes on to state "that you will be something than which nothing higher can be thought".
This may provide as the idea for Anselm's first discussion that is God is something than which nothing better can be thought. Which would make sense since how God is assume to be the ultimate being so there can be nothing greater than God. Needless to say if God does not can be found however than his reasoning is flawed for if God does not exist than there is something increased that may be thought to are present.
Thus the premise makes it hard to confirm that God will are present however, when Anselm says " something than which nothing at all greater can be thought" he already has an idea as to what that something is, thus it is safe to presume that which nothing higher can be thought is available in the understanding of the average person.
Thus Anselm feels that if something prevails in the understanding it must also exist in reality. Even if it weren't to exist in reality it can be thought to exist the truth is. When humans believe something in the understanding can are present the truth is, than that thought by itself is higher than believing God can only just exist in the understanding therefore, God is available in reality.
That's where Gaunilo's argument is necessary. Gaunilo uses the thought of a lost island filled with riches and higher than any island previously found by humans.
He continues on to prove the existence of this great island through the same manner as Anselm proves the lifetime of God. Gaunilo responds to Anselm "For you personally do not doubt that island exists in your understanding; and since it is more excellent to exist not only in the understanding, but also the truth is, this island must exist the truth is.
For if it didn't, any land that prevails in reality would be higher than it". Gaunilo is thus arguing for the presence of the island in much the same way Anselm argued for the presence of God.
If there is without doubt in the mind about existence of the great island however if the island will not exist that would imply that something greater does indeed can be found which would establish the statement incorrect, which would in turn prove Anselm incorrect.
This will not only apply to the island but can apply to anything such as an apple an canine and so on. There needs to be solid proof to be able to think that something will there be, arguing stating that God has to exist because to be able to comprehend something, the thing has to are present for understanding to be possible is false.
There are many things inside our world that can't be proven to can be found, yet we understand them. An example of this may be ghosts, ghosts are understood to be spirits of departed ones we understand this concept however that does not mean they are present.
Perhaps another exemplory case of the success Gaunilo acquired at disproving Anselm was that in his answer Gaunilo, Anselm does not reply to Gaunilo's argument.The ontological argument created by Anselm withstood a great deal of criticism until it was disproved by Kant over years after the fact.
Popular Essays The barber's Trade union Summary. Published: Mon, 5 Dec In this paper I will argue that Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God is indeed adequate for establishing the necessary existence of the Greatest Conceivable Being.
Analysis of Anselm's Ontological Argument and the Argument from Evil Words | 6 Pages Roxx Alvarado Professor Aaron Wilson PHI 8 September Analysis to Anselm’s Ontological Argument and the Argument from Evil The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question.
- The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The ontological argument is an a priori argument. The arguments attempt to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God.
The ontological argument was introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Oct 09, · Analysis to Anselm’s Ontological Argument and the Argument from Evil The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Anselm's Ontological Argument argument with ideas that do not depend on experience and progress to a throughly logical explanation that God necessarily exists.
Anselm's goal is to prove to the "fool" that God has to exist.