In attempt to argue in favor of the existence of God, Anselm lays down a very clever reduction. First, he defines God as “a being greater than which cannot be thought of.” In other words, God is the greatest possible thing one can think of, or conceive. Armed with this concept, he goes further to say that God most definitely exists in thought. Suppose God exists in thought alone. Also, it is conceivable that God exists in reality too. It is greater to exist in reality and in thought than to exist in reality alone. Thus, it is conceivable that there is something greater than God…but that is absurd. He therefore proves that God exists.
However, Guanilo counters the argument by saying that one can simply replace “God” in the equation and replace it with “a perfect island” and could thus prove that “a perfect island” exists. However, I have a problem with Guanilo’s argument that I must address because I feel a little confused by it. I don’t think you can simply replace the “God” variable with the “perfect island” variable (or any other variable for that matter). This can’t work because before constructing the equation, Anselm had to first define God as “the greatest thing one can possibly think of.” I don’t think any other variable would work in place of “God” because God is obviously greater than anything else. Thus, “God” is greater than “the perfect island.” Once again I will try to outline my argument for better clarity.
1. God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived
2. I can conceive of such a being
3. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the imagination
4. Therefore the being of which I conceive must exist in reality
Again, what Guanilo did was simply replace God with a perfect island. However, I think this already fails on the very 1st line because only God, not a perfect island, is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.
Anselm's and Aquinas' use of logic to define the nature of God is one of my favorite theological and essentially philosophical subjects of study. Anselm's Division of Three Cases' use of deductive reasoning, seems logical. “Every being is either a dependent being or a self-existent being.” That's one of my favorite quotes, I believe it breaks down the existence of beings on the Earth. When it is thought through, it seems to be a valid point. But every being in existence can't be dependent on a being that came before it, as that would just result in the controversial “infinite chain”. Anselm's use of the 2 and 3rd better explain the nation that not every being can be dependent, there has to be a self-existent(or independent) being. For most with a theistic background, this final point is enough to prove the existence of God. While I don't consider it to be a strong enough point, it does help my belief in a being with God's attributes to strengthen in validity.
ReplyDelete