[Anselm]That God truly exists

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It seems like fun to exchange some thoughts on this proof that God truly exists of Anselm. People call this a logical or also an ontological proof of the existance of God. Befre we start I would like to say that I do not want this to be a discussion on the question if God exists or not. Merely a discussion on the validity of arguments. In other words: "What do you think of this proof that God truly exists and why?", "What do you think that Anselmus thought or ment?" and "How do you think this is vieuwed by people with varying backgrounds and opinions?"

[quote="Proslogion"]
Chapter II
That God truly exists

Therefore, Lord, you who give knowledge of the faith, give me as much knowledge as you know to be fitting for me, because you are as we believe and that which we believe. And indeed we believe you are something greater than which cannot be thought. Or is there no such kind of thing, for "the fool said in his heart, 'there is no God'" (Ps. 13:1, 52:1)? But certainly that same fool, having heard what I just said, "something greater than which cannot be thought," understands what he heard, and what he understands is in his thought, even if he does not think it exists. For it is one thing for something to exist in a person's thought and quite another for the person to think that thing exists. For when a painter thinks ahead to what he will paint, he has that picture in his thought, but he does not yet think it exists, because he has not done it yet. Once he has painted it he has it in his thought and thinks it exists because he has done it. Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought, because he understands what he hears, and whatever is understood exists in thought. And certainly that greater than which cannot be understood cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought it could also be thought of as existing in reality as well, which is greater. If, therefore, that than which greater cannot be thought exists in thought alone, then that than which greater cannot be thought turns out to be that than which something greater actually can be thought, but that is obviously impossible. Therefore something than which greater cannot be thought undoubtedly exists both in thought and in reality.
[/quote]

Note: A full text (with a different choice of words, no doubt) can be found here.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 7,512 • Replies: 144

No top replies

@Arjen,

I was thinking about this ontological argument for God's existence recently. I decided to reword it to put in logical terms;

Reason 1 is that God is the greatest possible thing (or the sum of all perfections).
Reason 2 is that it is greater to exist within both the understanding AND reality than just in the understanding
These two reasons follow logically to Conclusion 1, that if God exists in the understanding, he must also exist in reality.

Then Reason 3 is that for both the theist and atheist, whether or not they accept or reject God, they must have an understanding of what they are rejecting.
Reason 4 is the obvious fact that some people DO accept God and other people DO reject him.
These two reasons follow logically to Conclusion 2, that God exists in the understanding.

And then Conclusion 1 and Conclusion 2 both follow logically to the Final Conclusion that therefore God exists in reality.

I had a huge problem with this argument because it seemed to be absolute proof that God exists, and yet I was certain it could be doubted somehow. I've heard people try and argue against it by claiming that the first reason is invalid, as some people may have a different definition of what God is. That makes no difference, though. As long as the definition described in that argument exists, the argument follows; even if some people do mean something different when they say God.

I realised why the argument doesn't work though. I doubt I'm the first to think of this but as far as I know I hadn't read this anywhere else it just struck me.

Reasons 1 and 2 were the problem;

Reason 1: God is the greatest possible thing (the sum of all perfections)
This is based on the assumption that the intrinsic maximum of all perfections must exist together. Of course the intrinsic maximum of each perfection exists as a concept (the Forms, perhaps), but for this argument to work, one must assume that all the Forms exist together as one thing, with each Form as a 'property' of this concept of God.

Reason 2: it is greater to exist within both the understanding AND reality than just in the understanding.
This is not necessarily so. This greatly assumes the existence of the material world, which is what is meant by 'reality'. I believe the material world is just a product of our mind, a way of understanding the information (sense data) given to us. In some ways it is a prison, a trap for our Souls (mind). Perhaps it is greater to escape this trap completely, to exist purely as mind and not as body. So then it is greater to exist only in the understanding (having rid itself of the material world) than to exist in this prison of 'reality' as well.

If either of those 2 reasons is successfully refuted, then Anselm's argument falls apart.

0 Replies

@Arjen,

This isn't logic; this is just playing with words. Here was Anselm's problem;

Quote:

Thus even the fool is compelled to grant that something greater than which cannot be thought exists in thought,

In order for something greater than which cannot be thought to exist in thought, then something which cannot be thought must also be able to exist in thought, else we can conceive of the greater but not the lesser. But how can something which cannot be thought exist in thought? If it exists in thought, then it can be thought, so it is not something which cannot be thought. He says "even the fool...". Well, I say, "only the fool..."

Now, I know what he was getting at and doubtless he thought himself clever. His idea is that someone can think about the idea of "something greater than which cannot be thought" thus this thing exists in thought. But he was completely wrong. Because as soon as one thinks about anything it then exists in thought. So nothing can be thought of that cannot exist in thought. Logically speaking, Anselm comes closer to disproving God's existence, because he says that God is something greater than which cannot be thought, but such a thing cannot exist in thought, thus God cannot exist in thought, let alone reality.

1 Reply

@Solace,

This is not a logical defense of the God hypothesis. In fact, I'm not sure that there is a logical defense for the God hypothesis; it is a failed idea.

1 Reply

@hue-man,

St. Anselm's proof is an example of Russell's Paradox and therein it fails. When we consider something which is greater than everything we have something similar to the set of all sets. If it were greater than everything, then it is something, thus it must be greater than itself, thus we have an apparent contradiction, hence the paradox.

As for the God Hypothesis, I think that it is silly to apply scientific rigor to religion or 'spirituality'. There is indeed a limit to what can be expressed, and I should think, a limit to human understanding. When we speak of the 'divine' we speak of that which is unknown, which cannot be known. Perhaps it is just a mental trick we play on ourselves, but so is skepticism. Certainty exists no more than a concrete god. Of that, I am certain.

2 Replies

@Arjen,

Quote:

God is the greatest possible thing (the sum of all perfections)

oh to even have a crumb of that pie, I would last forever

0 Replies

@Arjen,

Actually, FYI, this is a sound proof. See Godel's formalization in modal logic here:

However, the axioms necessary for the proof are somewhat controversial and, considering that the proof is valid, are the only points of weakness.
For example, how do we know an ultimately perfect thing must exist? Why must existence be more perfect than non-existence? Just ask Schopenhauer, he'll set Anselm straight! LOL!

EDIT:

Zetetic-

Being greater than yourself isn't contradictory if you are infinitely great, since infinity is greater than infinity... right? Who here knows their alephs?

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

St. Anselm's proof is an example of Russell's Paradox and therein it fails. When we consider something which is greater than everything we have something similar to the set of all sets. If it were greater than everything, then it is something, thus it must be greater than itself, thus we have an apparent contradiction, hence the paradox.

But this contradiction doesn't come about if instead of saying God is greater than everything, but is the greatest possible thing, so greater than everything else.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

As for the God Hypothesis, I think that it is silly to apply scientific rigor to religion or 'spirituality'.

What exactly do you mean by 'scientific rigor'? If you mean looking at it logically, this is philosophy, and philosophy, religion and spirituality have had crossovers all through history. Modern religions were born out of philosophy.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

There is indeed a limit to what can be expressed, and I should think, a limit to human understanding.

I wonder if when the wheel was invented, stone age man decided human understanding had reached it's limit and would never make sense of unknowable things such as what the Sun is or if the earth is really as the center of the Universe...

Zetetic11235 wrote:

When we speak of the 'divine' we speak of that which is unknown, which cannot be known.

I disagree. I think the divine refers to intimate knowledge of the Universe itself... perhaps even the consciousness of the Universe (if it is conscious). Perhaps that's what God is.

Zetetic11235 wrote:

Perhaps it is just a mental trick we play on ourselves, but so is skepticism. Certainty exists no more than a concrete god. Of that, I am certain.

I certainly hope God isn't made of concrete... otherwise he's probably a bird toilet :eek:

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

St. Anselm's proof is an example of Russell's Paradox and therein it fails. When we consider something which is greater than everything we have something similar to the set of all sets. If it were greater than everything, then it is something, thus it must be greater than itself, thus we have an apparent contradiction, hence the paradox.

As for the God Hypothesis, I think that it is silly to apply scientific rigor to religion or 'spirituality'. There is indeed a limit to what can be expressed, and I should think, a limit to human understanding. When we speak of the 'divine' we speak of that which is unknown, which cannot be known. Perhaps it is just a mental trick we play on ourselves, but so is skepticism. Certainty exists no more than a concrete god. Of that, I am certain.

I used the term hypothesis because technically speaking the idea of God is a supernatural hypothesis used to fill in the gaps of the unknown. I first heard the term hypothesis applied to God from the book entitled "God, the failed hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger. By calling the unknown God you are attempting to give the unknown a definition other than the unknown, which is bad methodology and bad logic. Metaphysics needs to be replaced with the natural sciences, and I'm not the first to say so. Terms like God, divine and spiritual need to go with it.

2 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I used the term hypothesis because technically speaking the idea of God is a supernatural hypothesis used to fill in the gaps of the unknown. I first heard the term hypothesis applied to God from the book entitled "God, the failed hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger. By calling the unknown God you are attempting to give the unknown a definition other than the unknown, which is bad methodology and bad logic.

Perhaps this is some people's definition of God, but 'the unknown' is certainly not the definition of God for most people, and not the original concept. Many flawed 'philosophers' have used God to fill in the gaps of the unknown, but that isn't what the concept of God is.

jgweed wrote:

Metaphysics needs to be replaced with the natural sciences, and I'm not the first to say so.

Then you're not the first that I think is wrong. Can you give me a good argument to support this? The natural sciences are of course important, and advance us greatly in medicine, technology, etc etc. I don't think they should replace metaphysics, but exist ASWELL as metaphysics. Metaphysics has a completely different purpose; it's a subject for philosophers to try and understand the nature of things. It may even have no practical use at all, but it's certainly interesting, and that's good enough for me to look into it.

jgweed wrote:

Terms like God, divine and spiritual need to go with it.

Sorry but I find it really hard to see a philosopher saying that certain terms should just be discarded. The problem with those terms is that different people mean different things by them, yet still talk with each other as if they mean the same thing. Most people probably don't even know what they mean. The terms don't need to be discarded, they need to be cleaned up. That could be hard work, but good philosophy.

2 Replies

@noumenon,

noumenon wrote:

EDIT:

Zetetic-

Being greater than yourself isn't contradictory if you are infinitely great, since infinity is greater than infinity... right? Who here knows their alephs?

Perhaps god is uncountably infinite, and we should set up a Diagonal Process via cantor to check. Smile

Take two sets A,B. Assume equality, A=B, then we have A <= B and B<=A where <= denotes 'is a subset of'. The negation of this is B>A or A>B(where > denotes a proper subset), which is true if one set is a proper subset of the other which would necessarily be the case if one were greater than the other. Since it must be true that one set be a proper subset of the other if and only if one is greater than the other, A != B (A does not equal B), hence a contradiction.

Since we are necessarily considering uncountably infinite objects which in fact must be larger than any conceivable cardinality as they must contain all objects with a conceivable cardinality, we are speaking of that which is inconceivable and thus we are speaking of nothing.

Further note, Goedel's proof is right only inasmuch as his interpretation of anselm's proof is right.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

By calling the unknown God you are attempting to give the unknown a definition other than the unknown, which is bad methodology and bad logic

Is that what I am doing? Or am I simply applying a concept to a term in lieu of another concept? I think that if you are more careful in your consideration of what I said, you will find that nothing necessarily indicates that I am defining the unknown, but rather defining god in terms of the unknown.

hue-man wrote:

. Metaphysics needs to be replaced with the natural sciences, and I'm not the first to say so. Terms like God, divine and spiritual need to go with it.

The natural sciences have metaphysical basis, even in process. Note that metaphysics has multiple branches, mainly speculative and analytical. Speculative metaphysics is nonsense, analytical metaphysics is more in line with what one might conceive of when considering the limitations, direction and methodology of physical sciences. Note that the natural sciences have their own problems, specifically considered in the philosophy of science and analytical metaphysics. Einstein actually has some interesting insights in the philosophy of science(as well as name recognition in less academic circles), but if you want a solid account check out Popper.

That natural sciences are at best an approximation due to their inductive nature is a given. This is not to say that any aspect of them is diminished in some way, but rather that our use of them is based on faith in the inductive process,e.g. we do not, for the most part, suspect that the sun will collapse tomorrow despite there being nothing to ensure that it cannot happen other that inductive reasoning. In this sense, human knowledge is incomplete and science is rooted heavily in faith, which is why I prefer mathematics. Unfortunately, not even rigorous logic is certain as the brain is affected by physical phenomena and thus it is possible that a small physical anomaly happens every time a proof is read by someone which tricks them into thinking that it is sound. There is simply no such thing as absolute certainty.

Because there is no such thing as absolute certainty, there necessarily are things which are uncertain, thus things which are unknown and cannot be known.

0 Replies

@Welshie,

Welshie wrote:

But this contradiction doesn't come about if instead of saying God is greater than everything, but is the greatest possible thing, so greater than everything else.

Fine. If god is the greatest possible thing, then he must be greater than my conception of him, correct? Hence my conception is incomplete and god is unknowable.

Welshie wrote:

What exactly do you mean by 'scientific rigor'? If you mean looking at it logically, this is philosophy, and philosophy, religion and spirituality have had crossovers all through history. Modern religions were born out of philosophy.

Perhaps a bad why to say that, my above posts clarify what I meant.

Welshie wrote:

I wonder if when the wheel was invented, stone age man decided human understanding had reached it's limit and would never make sense of unknowable things such as what the Sun is or if the earth is really as the center of the Universe...

Same thing here, I think that I was not sufficiently clear, but my above posts should clarify.

Welshie wrote:

I disagree. I think the divine refers to intimate knowledge of the Universe itself... perhaps even the consciousness of the Universe (if it is conscious). Perhaps that's what God is.

But we have no intimate knowledge of the universe. Smile

Welshie wrote:

I certainly hope God isn't made of concrete... otherwise he's probably a bird toilet :eek:

:Glasses::Glasses::Glasses::Glasses::Glasses:

0 Replies

@Welshie,

Welshie wrote:

Perhaps this is some people's definition of God, but 'the unknown' is certainly not the definition of God for most people, and not the original concept. Many flawed 'philosophers' have used God to fill in the gaps of the unknown, but that isn't what the concept of God is.

Then you're not the first that I think is wrong. Can you give me a good argument to support this? The natural sciences are of course important, and advance us greatly in medicine, technology, etc etc. I don't think they should replace metaphysics, but exist ASWELL as metaphysics. Metaphysics has a completely different purpose; it's a subject for philosophers to try and understand the nature of things. It may even have no practical use at all, but it's certainly interesting, and that's good enough for me to look into it.

Sorry but I find it really hard to see a philosopher saying that certain terms should just be discarded. The problem with those terms is that different people mean different things by them, yet still talk with each other as if they mean the same thing. Most people probably don't even know what they mean. The terms don't need to be discarded, they need to be cleaned up. That could be hard work, but good philosophy.

Exactly, applying the word God or divine to the unknown is just bad methodology and bad logic. This attempt also points out the fact that those words are just as meaningless to reality as the word unknown is.

In regards to doing away with metaphysics: what I should have said was that we shouldn't use metaphysics (which is the mother of science) as a way to make supernatural claims seem viable; that goes for theism and deism. So I take that statement back, as long as we do not separate good epistemology and logic from metaphysics, and do not confuse hypotheses with truths.

We (humans) have discarded terms and concepts that we found to no longer be viable or useful before, and I believe that terms like divine, God, soul, and the like should be discarded amongst serious thinkers, because the terms will always be associated with supernatural metaphysics. There are other, more viable terms that can easily replace all of those that I mentioned.

0 Replies

@Welshie,

Hi,

It is impossible to prove the existence of God and it is also impossible to prove the non existence of God.

But God exists "The heavens declare the glory of God" and that is good Smile

enough for me

Alan

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Is it possible that we (those of you engage in this conversation thus far and myself in my own thoughts on this popular argument) have misunderstood Anselm's argument?

Here is what Thomas Merton has to say on the subject in his book Faith and Violence:

Quote:

Though St. Anselm is ordinarily represented as a man who was eager at all costs to discover an airtight apologetic proof of God's existence, I do not think this is the whole story. Certainly Anselm was a Dialectician and was fully confident that his dialectic had the power to convince. But what he was saying in his argument (wrong called "ontological") was that God was the one being whose existence required no proof. He cannot but "be". To question the "existence" of Him Who is, is tantamount to conceiving Him as possibly existing or not existing, as having somehow "come into being." Since He cannot be, any question of His possible existence is irrelevant. To me the important thing about this is the religious institution of God's aseity*, not the supposed force of dialectical proof.

Aseity, a word I had to lookup when I first read the passage, is the characteristic of being un-derived, as opposed to being derived from or dependent upon something else.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas Merton certainly does put it in an interesting light, but he, like Anselm, is a dialectician. When he pairs opposite phrases like "He cannot but "be"." and "Since He cannot be," to come up with "any question of His possible existence is irrelevant." then I can't help but feel that he's also just playing with words, but making little sense. This especially; "the important thing about this is the religious institution of God's aseity," is just shameless religious promotion, as if any religious institution can lay claim to God or his aseity. I wonder when mankind will realize that truth is not found in religion.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Thomas Merton certainly does put it in an interesting light, but he, like Anselm, is a dialectician. When he pairs opposite phrases like "He cannot but "be"." and "Since He cannot be," to come up with "any question of His possible existence is irrelevant." then I can't help but feel that he's also just playing with words, but making little sense.

Elsewhere in the book Merton discusses God's existence/non-existence; I'll have to search for the actual passage. You say Merton is making little sense, but you find his interpretation interesting. What's the trouble in pairing these opposites?

Solace wrote:

This especially; "the important thing about this is the religious institution of God's aseity," is just shameless religious promotion, as if any religious institution can lay claim to God or his aseity.

I think you misunderstand Merton's language. It isn't a religious institution that claims God or his aseity, but it is a religious institution that God is aseitic. Religious institution; an important notion in theology.

Solace wrote:

I wonder when mankind will realize that truth is not found in religion.

I wonder when mankind will realize that truth is all around him - and found in religion and irreligion, in philosophy and in abandoning philosophy, in science and in abandoning science. :whistling:

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

What's the trouble in pairing these opposites?

The same trouble with pairing any opposites; they're opposite. Can you tell me anything that is and is not? (Apart from some abstract definition of space.) And I simply cannot hold with his conclusion that "any question of His possible existence is irrelevant". The question may not be answerable, but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant, especially if, like Merton, one believes that God does exist. How can one possibly propigate such belief but then dismiss the sole question surrounding it as irrelevant? It strikes me as an attempt to brush off the doubts of non-believers.

Quote:

I think you misunderstand Merton's language.

Actually, I didn't. In that case, I was just playing with words. I should clarify that I have nothing against playing with words, (I do it for a living,) but passing it off as logical, or ontological, is a different matter, particularly when it isn't. But whether or not it is a religious institution that God is aseitic is secondary to the notion that God is aseitic. In order for God to be aseitic, God still must be. Thus brushing off the question of God's existence as irrelevant automatically makes irrelevant the notion that he is aseitic, or that he is anything else for that matter.

Quote:

I wonder when mankind will realize that truth is all around him - and found in religion and irreligion, in philosophy and in abandoning philosophy, in science and in abandoning science.

Well, I guess ya got me there. Surprised

2 Replies

@Solace,

I think the only thing this progression of thought proves is that we are the Gods.

3 Replies

[Anselm]That God truly exists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know