Essay on Anselm and Aquinas: on the Existence of God

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a Philosopher used the logic of both Aristotle and Saint Augustine to establish his teachings. He taught that believing in God was not simply for the ignorant. He used both Greek Philosophy and Christian Doctrine in his teachings. He taught an abundant of things including that the goal of Theology is is use reason to grasp the truth about God and to experience salvation through that truth. In addition to that, he shaped the catholic understanding of mortal sin and venial sin.

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

4. The existence of God remains a matter of faith since it’s difficult to "prove" God to someone who does not believe.

The next point Anselm makes is that God existing in reality as well as understanding is greater than just understanding alone. Anselm then follows that with his next point: that it can be thought that God can exist in reality. “So even the fool must admit that something than which nothing greater can be thought exists at least in his understanding, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood exists in the understanding. And surely that then which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist only in the understanding. For if it exists only in the understanding, it can be thought to exist in reality as well, which is greater” (Proslogion Chapter 2). The first point is self-explanatory. Proving God exists would be much easier if God existed in reality and understanding compared to understanding alone. Similarly, proving a cyclops existed would be much easier if you saw, captured, and defined it as a cyclops than just being able to define a cyclops. It is a reasonable assertion.

The argument begins with Anselm defining the term God as “that, than which nothing greater can be conceived” (pg.26). Although simple, once this term is accepted Anselm believes he has successfully proven the existence of God. This becomes clearer with further analysis. If God is a being that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, it naturally follows that God would possess all properties of greatness. An example of this would be omnipotence. Omnipotence would be such a property because it is greater to have ultimate power than to have limited power, therefore, God being the greatest conceivable being would possess the property of omnipotence. Likewise, it is greater for something to exist in both reality and the mind, than to exist only in the mind. Thus, just as omnipotence was ascribed to God so must the property of existence, for if God did not exist, he would be lacking a great making property, and consequently would be only a great being, but not the greatest conceivable being.

In the first version of the Ontological argument, Anselm starts with the definition of God. Anselm states that God is defined as that being in which nothing greater can be thought.

Thomas Aquinas also had a critique of the ontological argument, that we as humans cannot know Gods nature, humans will all conceive of God in different ways, some conceptions of God even assign him a body; this argument couldn’t apply to all these conceptions, some of which are contradictory, this would mean it’s impossible to conceive of God in the way that Anselm has put forward. In order for the ontological argument to work you would need to know God perfectly, and since only God knows itself perfectly, only God could use this argument. The phrase “a being than which none greater can be imagined” is far too vague to be used in a strong argument.

Using the example of a flawless watch in the sand that must have come from a watchmaker it continues on to explain that there is a purpose in the world. There must be an intelligent design that created the right conditions to support life on earth. However complex the world may be though it is possible that the universe is a result of the perfect goldilocks conditions and can be explained naturalistically. The world is not so perfect because of pain and suffering. Natural disasters are a daily occurrence and if God was all of the Omni’s and created the world perfectly they wouldn’t occur. The world does not have to have a intelligent being behind it all it could be a result of just right conditions. The teleological argument cannot be proven to be true but neither can the counterargument. It cannot be known for certain if there is an intelligent being that created the universe with a purpose or if it’s just a result of the perfect goldilocks

In Anselm’s ontological argument of the existence of God, Anselm’s goal is to prove the existence of God by purely logical truths and reasoning (that is, his argument only contains A Priori knowledge). A summary of Anselm’s argument is that, because God exists in understanding, and that God is the supreme being, and that real things are greater than things only existing in understanding, then God must exist in understanding. A formal, numbered argument follows:

The success of Anselm’s argument does not depend on a person having a complete and accurate understanding of the idea of a being than which none greater can be conceived. For example, we do not have a total understanding of the concept of a natural number than which none larger can be imagined, but we understand it well enough to see that no such number

singularity there is no time and all of the laws of physics as we know

Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing can be thought”, and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being much be possible – one which exists both in the mind and in reality (Wikipedia, 2017). I can closely relate to Anselm and his beliefs about God in so many ways.

St. Anselm’s first form of the argument is that God is “that than which none greater can be conceived”. This means that no one can think of anything that is greater than God. The second idea is, it is greater to exist than not to exist. Next, St. Anselm describes two kinds of existence: existence in the mind, and existence in real. Existence in the reality is very easy to believe, if you can touch, see, smell, hear, or taste something, in reality it exists. Existence in mind is harder to understand for some, because many people only believe what they see. Finally, St. Anselm defined God as the greatest being possible. A being who fails to exist is less perfect than a being that exist. Therefore, God must exist, necessarily. If the greatest thing that we can conceive does not exist than we can still conceive the greatest thing that does exist, and that would be God.

In the first place I will point out St. Anselm’s argument, and his emphases on understanding, thoughts, and the heart. St. Anselm lived in a time when the church was controlled by tyrannical kings, so much of his time was spent in research and analyzing his theories’ To Anselm, God was the greatest being, and if God was imagined he would be even greater than that. In other words, God is unimaginable, and if we could imagine God, then we still wouldn’t understand what God is. This statement proposed by Anselm that, “Lord, you who grant understanding to faith,” places the importance of knowledge in order to know God, and it’s God who gives us this knowledge (Louis, Michael and Robert 139). For Example those who have a thought of God’s existence,

Anselm in this case defines God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm 30). Ontological arguments tend to be a priori, which is an argument that utilizes thoughts as opposed to empirical evidence to prove validity. Anselm addresses the Atheist fool in an attempt to disprove him “since the fool has said in his heart, There is no God?”(Anselm, 30). Anselm stressed that it is obligatory to recognize God as a perfect being that cannot be improved upon, and if someone understands the concept of God, then God exists in that person’s understanding. It is greater to exist in reality than just simply the understanding. The fool understands the concept of God. Therefore the fool has God in his understanding. Suppose God exists only in the understanding of the fool and not in reality. We could then think of something exactly as it existed in the fools understanding but it can also exist in reality, and the being we conceived of would be greater than the being that exists in the fools understanding. Therefore God exists not only in the understanding of the fool but also in reality. By showing that God exists in reality as well as in the understanding, we see that it is imperative that we should believe in God and that it is indeed reasonable.