St. Anselm of Canterbury Essay -- essays research papers

In the following I intend to heighten that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that divinity fudge exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly wherefore The ontological Argument is unsatisfactory. The Definition of Greater St. Anselm of Canterbury defined immortal as that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought (Bailey, 2002). The problem with this definition is that the term greater is surely up for interpretation. The term greater requires a comparison between itself and one or more things, which could pose a problem for Anselms argument however Professor Thorp states that the only divagation between these two things is that one exists in the mind, while the other exists in the mind and in reality. If we understand that a theology that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than one that merely exists in the mind then we must understand that God exists. We ne ed to examine this, however, much more nearly to discover the problem with this statement and I will do so using an example given to us by Professor Thorp. During the discussion of the ontological argument, the professor asked us whether we would prefer a real beer on a hot day, or an fanciful beer. The real one is preferable and it is greater than the imaginary one. But what type of beer was each person in the class imagining? There are multiple brands of beer available and it is quite possible that many people passim the room were picturing a different beer. Which real beer was greater? This is not a question that I can answer because it lies in a subject of preference. We experience a similar problem when we think of a real God, and an imaginary God. Perhaps I perceive God in a specific way, and to me, he is a being that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought (Bailey, 2002). This proves that my acquaintance of God exists for me, but what of everyone elses perceptions of God? We must recognize a problem with this, in that everyone may perceive a greater God in a very different way. We know that there are different perceptions of the greater God because we have evidence of it in the various religions and the contrasting views of their God. With this in mind, all Anselm is able to prove with his argument is that every persons individual perception of God does exist, but no on... ... entrap or imagine Him. Because of this, God cannot be thought, he can merely be defined as infinite. Since we cannot comprehend God in our thought, he no longer exists in our minds as an entity, but merely as a definition. Thus, since he no longer exists in our minds, there is no obligation to understand that he must exist in reality an implication made in Anselms argument.Anselms Ontological argument is insufficient in proving that God exists. For the reasons above and further objections from various philosophers, I do not believe that Anselm can argue the existence of God w ith his current premises as they stand. I must say that despite my objections to Anselms Ontological argument, I respect his work done, and the tremendous thought deal that must have occurred to conjure up such a case as was presented. It is definitely much easier to prove a mortal wrong than it is to prove the existence of something so great and so unknown. Anselms Ontological argument while intriguing does have some problems in my opinion that take apart from its validity but needless to say it is in and of itself quite astounding.