48 - Anselm's Ontological Argument

When we covered the subject of the scholastic period I made reference to the fact that there literally were debates that were

From our perspective so arcane that They seem almost humorous to us today

And then there were some arguments such as Anselm's ontological argument that you would have to take a few

Tylenol before you began to discuss them to be able to get all the way through and I I Sort of figured that would be enough to scare everybody off from it

But the reality is there were a number of people who actually wanted to cover Anselm's Ontological arguments and so we're gonna take a few moments to to do that I'm gonna be fairly brief on this

You could Truly get lost in in the forest Attempting to think all of these things through and there's a lot of categories of of thought that were prevalent in The time period that are not prevalent any longer which require you to explain things over and over again so we're willing to dedicate one class to this and but it is interesting and it you know if you really like bending your mind to try to Understand another time period and understand another way of thought or just understand a particular philosophical argument this

This should be useful to you When we there's some basic things though that you've got to get down or it's not going to make any sense

And that's one of the reasons why apologetically speaking The ontological argument is next to impossible to utilize

I I don't I don't know that you could do a really really really really really good job in the modern period in The normal opening segment of a debate to even lay it out let alone do so in such a way as to be begin to defend it so That's why

I don't think you'll find too many people running around Utilizing the ontological argument in street witnessing or anything along those particular lines because there are things we have to try to explain so It is important to understand that in the thought of Anselm You need to understand certain terms

So we can think of Things which exist and things which do not exist and so We can think of things that exist we can think of specific

Buildings cities Inventions of mankind Extraterrestrial Items such as the

Sun or the planets or other solar systems or galaxies Whatever else these saying these might be but then there are things which simply don't exist, but might have existed

Of unicorns and yetis and yeah, there might be some people who think oh, no, no, I think they do but There's nothing in and of itself

That would say that a unicorn cannot exist just that it doesn't exist, it's mythological, but You know you could

You could have a horse like creature with a single horn on its head. That's it's not you know itself outside the realm of possibility

It's not logically absurd to think of some of these things which do not exist, but they but they could have so and I'm by the way following the outline not of Anselm himself, but of a excellent writer in this field

William Rowe Rowe In his explanation of the ontological argument in well.

It's textbook that I I used when mr. Callahan I took logic

And philosophy from mr.. Callahan, and this was the textbook that we we utilized and so to understand what a contingent thing is a

Contingent thing is a thing that logically might have been on the other side the line from the side it is actually on so in other words a a

Contingent thing could be a thing that doesn't exist, but might have or something that might have existed that does exist, but But might not have existed and so Those are contingent things an impossible thing is a thing that Doesn't exist and could not

Possibly have existed so that's the difference between a contingent thing and an impossible thing these are aspects of Anselm's argument that are not necessarily a part of our experience and therefore we

Need to cover these basic things In Anselm's thought he makes a distinction between Existence in the understanding and Existence in reality

Anselm's notion of existence in reality is The same as our notion of existence so at that point

We and Anselm would be thinking in the same realm. We're talking about something that exists in reality, but Where we don't have the connection

Mainly because we haven't thought about it mainly because it's not been something else. It's just not something that's part of our modern dialogue is

The idea of existence In understanding

Now if something exists in reality

Then I I have to understand that it exists in reality I have to have that thing in my mind.

I have to be able to cogitate upon it Maybe you know you could use the idea of a mental image Let's let's think of Well, okay, let's use something that You've all seen the sword that William Wallace carried

I've actually seen it there in Sterling it still exists Okay, you may not have seen it.

I've actually seen it, but you've seen representations of it and So it exists in your understanding that exists in reality and I suppose it exists in my understanding in a greater way than yours if you've not actually seen it

Um, but there is that relationship between Its existence in reality and its existence in the understanding

So as a result you could say that there are things that Contingent things that actually do exist in the understanding

That Do not exist in reality so We talked about unicorns we all in our minds had a

Vision of a unicorn it understand it exists in our understanding. So from Anselm's perspective that is a level of existence

That is a level of existence we Generally would not utilize that category

But he is arguing that You need to recognize That if you can picture something in your mind you have knowledge of what it's supposed to be that is a kind or a level of existence

So putting that aside just sort of a come up in some of the discussion

There are two more ideas that We need to consider before we can actually get to the argument because what normally happens is you jump into the argument and nobody has a clue what you're talking about because It's utilizing categories of thought that we are either not accustomed utilizing or just have fallen out of use over the past thousand years or so and As a result, we just sit there and go how could any of buddy have ever thought that was relevant or useful or anything else?

And you just you just go on from there so and some wrote a couple of books a monologuem and the

Proselytium and One of the categories that comes out of his writings we need to understand or distinguish

Between a being than which no existing thing is greater

And secondly a being than which no conceivable Being is greater now

Hopefully already we sort of touched on this. So a being in which no existing being is greater We're talking about Existence in reality and then a being then which no conceivable being is greater that's existence in the understanding

So these are two different kinds of Of greatness of being shall we say one the understanding one in reality and so Anselm is going to define

God as A being than which nothing greater can be conceived now

Think about that for a second. That's putting the greatness of God's existence in the conception

In in your thought and understanding rather than merely in existence, so that's

In his thought that's a higher realm of existence then mirror mirror existence in the physical world and of course, this is where Anselm is just on a different planet than We are today

Because of that very thing We are so focused upon The physical realm we're so focused upon the sciences

We're so focused upon, you know being able to document things in in a particular fashion that we just We can't even go here.

We can't even consider what and Selma saying but it is well worth

While to enter into his thought to be able to understand What is he was saying?

So Anselm's view is that whenever some whenever someone asserts that something does not exist

That thing does exist in the understanding Because you have it has to exist an understanding for you to be able to deny that exists in reality

These distinctions again, we don't make and therefore when they're made in the argument we lose track of it. And that's why we're

Covering it now So to quote

Rowe this idea says that if a certain being is God Then no possible being can be greater than it or conversely if a certain being is such that it is even

Possible for there to be a being greater than it then that being is not God. So the definition of God is

The being then which none greater is possible You can conceive anything greater than God then that's

God By definition So God is that is the greatest being

That can possibly be in the conception in the mind in the thought

Okay, one more Key issue before we walk through the argument and you can see

How all this fits together? And this is this is the key

Element of the argument that Philosophers anyways argue against and that is that Existence in reality is a great making quality

Existence in reality is a great making quality. Now, what the world does that mean?

Well Basically If something can be conceived of in The thought in the understanding that also exists in reality.

That's greater than something that could only be conceived of In the mind rather than in reality

So there is a a great making element that is it is greater to exist both in the understanding and in reality

Than to exist only in the understanding so that that is that it is it is a better thing a

Greater thing would exist in both the understanding and in reality Because if you can conceive of it then it might have existed in reality

So therefore there's another step that it could have gone Through and therefore would be greater and since the definition of God is of which no greater can be conceived then

You have that that insistence Existence in reality is a great Making quality.

So with that in mind And believe me people have made serious arguments in behalf of of all of these things

They they truly have Here are the steps of the argument point

Number one God exists in the understanding God exists in the understanding

So there is a an existence that is asserted right there. All right, that's number one number two

God might have existed in reality So that means

God is a possible Being So again, these are those areas of distinction existence in the understanding existence in reality

If God exists the understanding God might have existed in reality There is nothing

You know God's not in the category of a square circle or a logical conundrum or something along those lines

If something exists only in the understanding and might have existed in reality

Then it might have been greater than it is. This goes back to the great making idea that we just talked about so if God exists only in the understanding and Might have existed in reality.

That is he's a possible being that goes back to point number two Then it might have been greater than it is the great making

Concept number four Suppose God exists only in the understanding.

So, all right, so let's with the first three accepted ideas

Then you posit Another form of the argument suppose

God exists only in the understanding suppose God's just Something we think about Something men's made up You know as most atheists today would say, you know

It's just simply the collective conscience of man over time and and and things like that Number five

God might have been greater than he is. So if you take the preceding points and You suppose the

God exists only in the understanding Then God might have been greater than he is

Because he only exists the understanding and to exist in both reality and the understanding is a greater thing so number six

God is a being than which a greater is possible That's what flows from four and five based upon one through three

God is a being than which a greater is possible in light of him only existing and understanding and not in reality

So number seven the being then which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible

So you take the definition of God? none greater is possible and The problem is if God is a being then which a greater is possible number six and that means you take the word

God out and You put in the longer definition of What God is and that is the being then which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible

That's obviously a direct contradiction That is making the first part of the sentence contradict by the second part of the sentence

It is therefore number eight it is false that God exists only in the understanding because Supposing number four

Suppose God exists only in their standing led to the inherent contradiction of number seven

Therefore number eight It is false that God exists only in the understanding

So number nine God exists in reality as well as in the understanding Since it is false that God exists only in their staying now a

An atheist would say whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait How'd you get there again?

the atheist in Anselm's universe in Anselm's world the atheist is already by calling himself an a theist he has a concept of what theism is and what the

Theos is God is and Therefore from Anselm's perspective

God already exists in the atheist understanding That is a kind of existence

But by definition God is the greatest that can be conceived if he doesn't exist in reality then he is less than what can be conceived and Therefore number nine

God exists in reality as well as in the understanding That's what you get when you combine number one

God exists in the understanding With number eight it is false that God exists only in the understanding

There's the key. So God exists in understanding. Well, okay. Yeah, even the atheist has to admit that it is false

That God exists only in the understanding He has to exist in something more than just the understanding there's only two categories the understanding in reality so God exists in reality as Well as in the understanding

So the reason is called the ontological argument is it flows from ontology from the very concept of existence the existence of the being of which no greater can be conceived and And That's why it's called the ontological argument

Obviously the the primary Criticism has focused upon the idea that existence in Reality is a great making property as well as the fact that you are utilizing a definition of God that fundamentally says that God is that which no being could be conceived of it would be greater

But why would that definition in of itself have direct relevance to what must exist in reality that Those are some of the issues that are are raised at that at that point, but let's just let's just be honest very few people

Today well not exactly a huge number of people in Anselm's Day had a

Sufficiently robust understanding of Philosophical categories or even the argument itself to really make heads or tails out of this

And so yeah people back then had much longer conversations. We do today and This was an an apologetic argument in in Anselm's Day, there's there's no

No two ways about it. It's it's not so much that anymore It's it's a very hard argument to state succinctly and and understandably

But there you have it there you have Anselm's Anselm's presentation and So that does give you somewhat of a sense and a flavor of the kind of Argumentation that the scholastics were famous for this is actually a well -thought -through argument and Again we find it strange just because it's so far outside of the categories of our normal our normal ways of thought but You might look at this as sort of the best of scholasticism whereas there was a lot of other stuff that did not

Live up to this level shall we say is there?

Is there any validity to this argument? Well in my experience when you look closely at any of the

Any of the theistic arguments even when you look at The Kalem Cosmological argument and things like that.

It's all based upon a Christian worldview. These men were operating within a Christian worldview and If you accept certain categories that are defined

By the Christian worldview then you can even make a defense of the ontological argument, but it requires that worldview first I think the

Cosmological argument makes sense Now the kalam cosmic cosmological argument, but it does so within a

Christian worldview only so It's not it's not valid in of itself

It's valid within a particular context and that context is provided by God as a creator of all things.

So Does it have validity? in a certain context Does it have validity?

apologetically in the sense of You know, let's memorize this and go out to use it on on the

I was gonna say the playground, but that would really make it bad, you know and street witnessing and University, you know things like that No, I don't think so but I suppose

I you could think of a couple contexts that you know, it might Extend a conversation or something like that.

But again, it's it's Any meaningful argument like this? Is only gonna have validity?

With in a context that already recognizes you're dealing with someone who knows God exists. That's that's the point and Theologically at this time period there was a

Because the semi -plagian ism of Rome Which had existed for quite some time now there was a fun there were fundamental errors in Roman Catholic anthropology that Therefore indicated, you know the impact that I'm sorry

This kind of thought as well So it's interesting to think through But I don't know that it's overly compelling

In them in the modern context So want to get once again number one God exists the understanding number two Might have existed in reality

God's a possible being number three if something exists only in understanding it might have existed in reality

Then it might have been greater than it is Number four suppose God exists only in the understanding number five.

God might have been greater than he is Number six. God is a being than which a greater is possible therefore number seven the impossible conclusion the being then which none greater is possible is a being then which a greater is possible that of course is double talk.

So number eight, it is false that God exists only in the understanding. Number nine, God exists in reality as well as in the understanding.

This is Anselm's argument, and I hope that has been helpful to you.