religiuous thinkers often reference this proof.besides all the religious vs atheist bibble babble that exists today its an interesting logical deductive proof n such. first thrown out there by st. anslem.
God is, by definition, a being greater than anything that can be imagined.
Existence both in reality and in imagination is greater than existence solely in one's imagination.
Therefore, God must exist in reality; if He did not, God would not be a being greater than anything that can be imagined
or in other words
God is that entity than which nothing can be greater.
The concept of God exists in human understanding.
God exists in one's mind but not in reality.
The concept of God's existence is understood in one's mind.
If God existed in reality, it would be a greater thing than God's existence in the mind.
The final step to God's existence is that God in reality must exist.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Just to be 'that guy',
the problem with ol'Anselm
is that he starts with a
rather large assumption.
....if we assume that God is a being greater than anything that can be imagined...
Without first accepting that condition, the whole proof falls apart. And, any good proof is based on other proofs, which can be traced all the way back to the simplest proof.
Anselm's logic is faulty, built on an unproven assertion, and circular.
I'm not refuting the existence of God, just the idea that a simple proof settles the issue.
Also; the whole science-vs-religion thing is potato soup.
agree completely matty. it is circular. and it is potato soup. but i suppose what he means is that the very concept of god is a being greater then that which can be imagined. not god itself. so if the concept of a god holds true then based upon some kinda jumpy logic then gods gotta exist. but
i do think its way too simplistic and in the end quite dated.
lets hear some more thoughts on the subject.
from me or from the other members of the beanpoutineans?
Why do religious scholars/advocates make such arguments? It seems to me that to successfully convert a person into any faith one cannot appeal to a logical argument. A logical explanation of faith is impossible (is this not why it's called "faith"?). I would imagine most people would describe their faith as experiential. Beyond the realm of communication. Unsuited as debatable subject matter.
I've never understood this potato soup issue because science and religion are not comparable. Apples and Oranges. To me there cannot be conflict between them, because where one exists the other cannot. Since they will never meet how can we measure one in relation to the other? Where is the common denominator to solve this equation?
Excellent post. Keep 'em coming.
Andrew
well andrew. i understand what you are saying...BUUUUUUUUUUt. i think what st anselm was doing was saying that in order to even have the idea of what god is then he/she has to exist. that ingrained in us is the existence of a fod. hes not talking about faith in god really. or trying to explain faith..or even talking about science. but in fact the question of whether our language/thought patterns determine truth or its the other way around. good thoughts for sure though allround. the common demoninator is the westboro baptist church surely.
Anselm wasn't dealing with semantics,
or the implications of language.
He really was trying to use logic
to explain the existence of God.
Not unlike Descartes' thingy
about thinking and being,
and living in the woods and
sleeping in ovens.
I might have misquoted that.
and andrew,
It's dangerous, I think, to neatly compartmentalize science and religion. It's not that the two are apples and oranges, respectively, but a much more complex mishymashy.
Not too long ago (speaking in terms of mankind) it was impossible to separate science from religion from magic from everyday life.
What's the white stuff in bird poop?
i understand he wasnt talking about semantics. but when it comes down to it..when we use the word god we are useing a word with certain implications.
although he may not have been using semantics on purpose i think that he implicitly was doing so by trying to indicate that our understanding of what god is relies upon certain thingys.
meaning is use. i know that anselm was just trying to use logic but the logic he was using was based upon this worlds understanding of god. if we get into some toher worlds theroy stuff we can kinda like show what he was saying..i dunno. lost my train.
Post a Comment