So there it is. Proof that God exists (in only 9 steps!). See? Philosophy can be pretty easy sometimes.
I won't rehash the entire argument here-- you've got it in your notes, and we'll review it tomorrow if we have to-- but I wanted to point out a couple of its important features. First of all, the argument is deductively valid. As Ramsey said, once you grant the first three premises, the game is over. Which means, the only way the argument can be unsuccessful is if one of the first three premises is false. A good criticism of the argument, then, must call into question one of those premises. To review:
1. God exists in the understanding.
2. God is a possible being.
3. If something exists only in the understanding and could have existed in reality, then it could have been greater than it is.
Questions to consider:
For those who think the argument doesn't work, which of the above premises is false?
Is Anselm's definition of "God" any good? Does it matter for his argument if it isn't?
Does Gaulimo's "Perfect Island" criticism hold any water?
Is it proper to say that "existence" is a property held by an object?
Or can the argument be attacked in an entirely different way?
Big concepts. Big ideas. Big questions. Big fun. It's on.
5 comments:
This is Tom Burke. I see there haven't been any comments yet so I figured I would get things started. I bellieve the flaw in Anselm's argument is the premise that something that does not exist in reality could be greater if it did. I believe the problem here is the overall concept of existence. What constitutes existence? How is the existence of love, something that is not tangible, any different than the existence of God? Can someone actually prove that love is something real? Love is an idea, much like the notion of "the being than which there is no greater." I'm not sure if anyone can prove definitively that an idea, something that cannot physically observed, exists. I hope my thoughts were clear, see everyone in class.
Hi everyone. I agree with Tom that there are definitely flaws in Anselm's argument. While I do concede that it is beautiful and incredible testament to the abilities of the mind, I agree with Row in his objection to the Anselm's argument. Anselm does show that something must exist in order for it to be God, but he fails to show that God does really exist. But, then again maybe I'm just not understanding the argument. Anyone have some thoughts on this? See you all tomorrow.
i think guanilo's objection makes anselm's argument more powerful because in my opinion there is no difference between a completely perfect being and a completely perfect island, since a completely perfect island would have omnipotence and perfect morality.... we just have to remember that no man is an island.
i think that it is a pretty valid argument...the problem is that it is too vague...i think that the best rebuttal to guanil's argument is that this arguement can only be used to prove the existance of perfect entities, and because God is the only perfect entity it really only applies to God
This is Jim McGinley. I agree one-hundred percent with Will. In addition, I think that "a perfect Island" is not a possible thing. Because there are so many different people with different ideals of a perfect island, it would be impossible for there to be one perfect island. For example, most people's idea of a perfect island would probably be a forested island with white sandy beaches, a constant temperature of 80 degrees, and no seagulls. I, however, prefer my Islands to be aroud 70 degrees with pink sandy beaches, and I happen to like the seagulls. That said, each individual would have one island than which no greater is possible in his or her head, and therefore there is no one island than which none other is concievable- because there is always someone who will believe that their idea of an island is better. Therefore this island is not a possible thing, and cannot be considered by the Ontological Argument. This holds true for everything- other than God. God, according to Western Theology is infinite, and therefore contains all people's ideas of perfection. He, in effect, is the only idea that can be truly confirmed by this argument. Hopefully my lengthy statement was not a complete waste of time....
Post a Comment