Anselm - An Ontological Argument

A brief overview of the classic Ontological Argument for God's existence from St. Anselm of Canterbury.

[wisdomseeker]

I love your videos - I love philosophy and theology. Your videos provide much clarity.

[lautarob]

Excellent explanations!! Thanks a lot! Best wishes ❤

[ALittleBitofPhilosophy]

Hi James B!

Correct!

That’s why Anselm is claiming that an atheist must be a “fool” (logically speaking). The are claiming that they can imagine that the GCB can be conceived not to exist. In so doing, they would, he thinks, be committed to claiming that they can “conceive of a being greater than” the GCB which would seem to entail a contradiction.

[syfeb]

Hello! I wrote this poem about this theory a long while back, I hope you enjoy it.

To be ‘not to be’
the Square Circle
Not of nought is ‘is’.

[PriyaJain-kd]

a big thanks for the video, great source to begin with something ... also in Anselm's argument he is assuming that things existing in the real world is 'greater' than things existing in real life, is he committing the fallacy of begging the question as his entire argument is based on this presumption

[pauljohnson]

It seems that Anselm made an error of equivocation in assuming that an atheist understanding the existence of a monotheist's belief means understanding that a god or God actually exists. I've never met an atheist who thought God existed in actuality and denied it simultaneously.

[R.LeeOtherson-dtbx]

Jim B wrote:
"P3) If God exists in the mind alone, we could conceive of a being greater than God."
Really? I thought Anselm defined God as "that being greater than which none can be conceived, " notwithstanding his existence or non-existence.🙄

[R.LeeOtherson-dtbx]

This be Jim B. Do you mind if I use your formulation and your response to me in a book I'm writing?

[Watersnake]

Plato is walking down the street and accidentally bumps into a guy. He hands him a book and says, "Please accept my apology."

[freethinker]

U stated that an island is contingent and not necessary because if u rwmove the water its not an island but if u remove 1 angle from a triangle it becomes a straight line and if u add 1 angle it becomes a square. So is contingent and necessary subjective. A god what are its properties, can a god exist without a believer or will a tree in the forest collapse naturally without someone believing it fell.

[alfgubert]

Great video an explanation, sorry my ignorance, but I have a question, could Anselm ontological argument be applied for Aristotle's God the first mover?

[vanneyaathithan]

What do you do now, with all the academic degrees you have earned? I would appreciate your answer. thanks

[vanneyaathithan]

excellent. I will be in touch with you

[R.LeeOtherson-dtbx]

What I meant was, re. P3): Is it really true to say that "If God exists in the mind alone, we could conceive of a being greater than God, " if conceiving of a being greater than God is not possible whether he exists in the mind alone or not?

[TomDeGreyt]

"... then it can be conceived to exist in reality". Can I conceive of something to exist in reality when it doesn't? Can I conceive of unicorns to exist in reality? Or does the fact that they don't, preclude that?
Either way the argument fails.

[Hexalobular]

I fail to see how we are supposed to get from the conception to actual existence?
If a god exists only in the mind than the second supposedly greater being that we imagine will also exist only in the mind and therefore not _actually_ be any greater. Nor is there any reason to think that we are imagining it as greater than we imagined the first one so there should be no difference at all.
(Unless we failed to imagine that the first one existed in reality, in which case we should go back and fix that.)
We will be _imagining_ this god as greater than it _actually_ is but that's no contradiction, that happens all the time with pop stars and politicians etc.

[todd]

I personally subscribe to the Reformed Metaphysics of Collingwood. Collingwood rebuked Kant for not comprehending that Anselm isn't actually making a logical argument but is doing metaphysical analysis. In the prolog, Anselm declared that he believes in order to know what it is he actually believes. Knowledge of anything isn't possible apart from a metaphysical framework of presuppositions. And all conceptual frameworks are built up from metaphysical foundations just as all knowledge of anything is. Collingwood also points out that "God exists" isn't a proposition (a logical premise) but, rather, a presupposition. Take a peek at An Essay on Metaphysics by R. G. Collingwood.

[R.LeeOtherson-dtbx]

I have to put in that the notion that pre-Nicene christianity more resembled "a loosely organized group of religions than a single religion" is untenable....

[barrywilson]

When I was a philosophy major I thought that belief in this sealed your stupidity. Why even mention it now. And of course if it did prove God that would be the end of all imagined gods on earth. There is no way to attach it to your favourite God. Which is the problem with scientific proofs of God. Why press for a proof that ends your religion.

[vanneyaathithan]

Do you realize that in your presentation of Critique of Anselm's ontological argument, which you ground in Aristotle's Critique of Plato's Transcendental Metaphysics and Kant's Criticism of Ontological Predicate, "You are Committing some serious Awkward Fallacies? You have to be extremely careful that you cannot afford to commit any fallacy in your criticism when you are criticizing your opponent. You have to read Kant's text, with caution. Kant himself recognizes that the Ontological Predicate is a Problematic Predicate. My impression is that you did not the read text for yourself, but rather you have taken this piece of Kant's criticism from some idiot who himself did not read the text for himself. I recommend that you pay meticulous attention to criticism of anybody's argument before you criticize. '