The Proof of God by Anselm the Philosopher-Bishop

[This Baron of Mora]

As I mentioned on an earlier post I am in a Western Humanities class and last Friday we had a discussion over Anselm and his proof of how God exists. This was a very interesting discussion, especially since the majority of the class seems atheist/non-Christian. If you would like to read the paper we read it is located my teacher got it from here:
www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.asp

Note however that this is a very difficult read, rather repetitive, and often unclear, but very good in the end.

Much of what we talked about was merely what he was trying to say in it. He goes through a long talk (noting that his response later makes things much clearer) saying first of all that God must exist simply because we can think of Him as existing. He specifically mentions also that all other things that exist have a beginning, whereas God has none, and even in denying His existence one had already had Him in his thoughts. Since we can understand that He is "a being greater than which can not be conceived" he must exist in reality and that the mere thought that one such as He exist proves it. Perhaps my teacher put it best though when she said "Can you think of nothing?" Everyone said no of course, so as such "a being greater than which can not be conceived" must exist for everyone has thought of Him.

A rather interesting idea, and more importantly perhaps none of the atheists (or the very adamant Buddhist) could refute it, in fact they admitted it.

[Kessie]

That's an interesting argument. I personally like C.S. Lewis's reasoning better in Mere Christianity. About how we quarrel among ourselves because we hold each other to some kind of standard. "That's mine! Give it back!" But who invented fair play and why do even small children have the idea of justice firmly in place? He goes on to reason that there must be a just God who invented the rules of fair play and put them in our hearts.

Might be easier for atheists to argue against, but it's slightly less muddled. :-)

[This Baron of Mora]

Yes I like that one as well, noting I have not heard it like that before more like "all men have a moral code entwined inside them, thus God must have made that moral code (evolution sure couldn't by itself)" its no coincidence that most people when they break one of the Ten Commandments/the moral code that they feel they did something wrong, they did.

[fluke]

Anselm's Ontological Argument! Alvin Plantinga uses a modal version of this in The Analytic Theist.

[Resha Caner]

I've always wondered if I'm missing something about Anselm's argument. Maybe someone here can help me out.

First, I can imagine a lot of things that I don't consider to be real. People use these as examples all the time: FSM, unicorns, leprachauns, Pegasus, etc. Why would the argument be any different for those imaginary creatures?

Second, it is not true that something must be the greatest. Is there a 1995 Honda Accord that is greater than all the other 1995 Honda Accords? No, not really. They're all pretty much the same.

Third, if there were a being that was greater than all other beings, why does that require him to be a specific god? Allah and not Vishnu, or Zeus and not Jupiter?

This is the part where I remind everyone that I'm Christian. I think God very real. I just don't think human logic is going to get you there.

[This Baron of Mora]

Anselm's mentions that God (or "A Being Greater than which cannot be conceived") is different from these things in that He has no beginning whereas they did. Here's an analogy:

Think of all things as part of a library, each one the moment it is conceived etc. becomes a book, and every book has a "timestamp" (or you might say copyright date for a real book). Only God has no timestamp moreover He can conceive, see, and touch all that is in the library (in a sense He is The Librarian).

Now one can turn this analogy around and say that as such all time exists and all things exist (unicorns actually do-rhinos), but we can conceive them to exist if not in reality, than in imagination and thus exist in their own right as "timestamped books". I am ever reminded while saying this of the story Leaf by Niggle by. J.R.R. Tolkien where Niggle sees everything he imagined real (not going further so as to hurt it wonder).

It must be admitted that this argument is really just for the existence of God for monotheistic religions (in other words it can be applied to Islam etc. as well) because the problem with polytheistic ones is that with Zeus for example he has a beginning.

I must partially agree with you however on you last point (your in the party of many of Anselm's opponents as mentioned the pieces introduction at the above link, and on instances in his other works I do believe Anselm goes to far).

[Resha Caner]

Dec 9, 2012 1:15:18 GMT -5 This Baron of Mora said:

Anselm's mentions that God (or "A Being Greater than which cannot be conceived") is different from these things in that He has no beginning whereas they did.

I don't see how that helps. It seems a rather arbitrary qualification upon which to hang the argument ... and a bit circular. He must assume God to be the only god in order for this uniqueness upon which the argument hangs to prove the existence of God.

Dec 9, 2012 1:15:18 GMT -5 This Baron of Mora said:

Now one can turn this analogy around and say that as such all time exists and all things exist (unicorns actually do-rhinos), but we can conceive them to exist if not in reality, than in imagination and thus exist in their own right as "timestamped books".

I think that would be an equivocation on the word "exist."

[fluke]

Resha,

The definition requires there be only 1. There cannot be two beings greater than which can be conceived--there can only be one. There are some good philosophy articles on it here. The one on question begging would be particularly relevant.

I agree with you that human logic will not lead one to faith, but proofs such as this do remove barriers to faith.

[The Old Guy]

I believe there is natural faith and there is saving faith. Both are faith, but only one saves a soul from hell. Arguments of this type may remove some barriers to natural faith, but it has no impact on saving faith.

Saving faith has the attributes of affection for a merciful and holy God and fear of offending a just and righteous God.

Natural faith may assent to the possibility of a supreme being, but is lacks an emotional attachment to the heart.

Natural faith can be spiritually blind. Spiritual blindness is driven by desires, affections, hatreds and apathies. People lack saving faith because “they love not the truth” as the Scriptures state – not because of the empirical evidence they accept and reject.

Natural faith can entertain anything, but it cannot “rest” in the Lord Jesus Christ.