The Existence of God


The existence of God has been argued because there has been no direct proof, but the nurabers of people that have faith in God has given the argument for existence some merit. This paper is going to explain Anselm's argument for the existence of God, criticisms against it, and how he would try to disproof these criticisms.
To begin Anselm states that this concept is agreed upon: God is a being to which none greater can be conceived. This is vital to Anselm's argument, which will be evident in his later statements. His first statement is that he accepts the fool's statement that God exists in the understanding and not reality. Next he gets the fool to agree that an existence in reality is greater than existence in understanding. In his third statement he gets the fool to agree that having all God's properties and existence in reality is conceivable. Now he moves on to saying a being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is a being greater than God. He comes to this conclusion from the first two statements. Now he moves to the conclusion that a greater being than God can be conceived. This is evident from his third and fourth statements. By the definition of God no greater being can be conceived. Hence it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. This is evident from all of the previous statements.
By granting the fool's statement as true he's setting up the fool to contradict himself. He then leaRAB the fool to a statement that he cannot deny. He says that the existence in reality would be greater than the existence in understanding alone. This statement cannot be denied because through reason there are more advantages in reality than only existing in understanding. He then moves along the same line to get the fool to agree that it is possible to conceive that a being could have God's properties and exist in reality. By doing this, the fool now has a major problem. Anselm comes to the conclusion, that from the first two statements that the fool has agreed to, that a being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. The fool's argument is destroyed in Anselm's next statement. A greater being than God can now be conceived. Anselm can prove that the fool's statement is false because God can exist in reality as was proved in all of his previous statements.
The fool could possibly say that this thing is said to exist in the fool's mind only in the sense that he understanRAB what is said. He could say that all sorts of things that do not exist in reality exist in his mind. So since the fool thinks of this particular subject then it is assumed by Anselm that he understanRAB. This is evident when Anselm gives the definition of God. He assumes that the subject is understood. But if this is true, then in the first place there will be no difference between first having the thing in the mind and then understanding that it exists. For if God cannot be thought not to exist, then this argument has no point if it is being argued against someone that might deny that something of God's nature actually exists. Second, Anselm assumes that as soon as God is thought of then he must be perceived by the mind to exist without question. Anselm does not give an argument that proves that if God is perceived in the mind then he exists unquestionably other than the one that he has here and this one is flawed by assuming things that were accepted by society. His problem is that someone might say something that I am certain of or is even false but which I am deceived about. This does not mean that whatever I have a thought of must be in my understanding simply because I comprehend what I'm hearing.
Anselm would have a tough time trying to argue with the fool if he were to present Anselm with the above argument. In his time everyone believed in God and he was just trying to reinforce everyone's thoughts. He would probably go back to the beginning of his argument and continue to try to argue that if a person can conceive of an idea then it has to exist. He would think that it is inconceivable not to have an idea of God.
Anselm's definition of existing is different than existing in reality. Since a person can conceive of an idea and that they can describe what their idea consists of, Anselm thinks this is ground for existence. It does not have to have tangible features. When he refers to existence it is faulted in that it truly does not exist by the definition of the word. According to Webster the definition of existence is: to be; have reality or actual being. An idea is not reality or is not an actual being.
This would put him in a position that I do not think that he could get out of. He would then go on to try to say that if a being greater than which cannot be thought of cannot be nonexistent. He still does not realize that he neeRAB more proof than this to actually prove that there is a God. He assumes that the person accepts the concept of God even though he has no proof.
In this paper I have shown you how Anselm argues for the existence of God. He starts out stating that God exists in understanding but not in reality. This in turn gets the fool to agree with him. After this happens he states to the fool that existence in reality is greater than in understanding alone. He then gets the fool to contradict himself and shows that a being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. However, Anselm's thought process can be criticized because if you take the definition of existence it says that it has to have reality or actual being and an idea doesn't have that so Anselm's argument can be criticized. The existence of God is always going to be something people will talk about forever. Whether people believe or not is in the eye of the beholder.