Analysis Of St. Anselm, Gaunile's Argument
Many philosophers make arguments to try and prove God existence, while many of them think they have succeeded. Just a few of the philosophers that are still taught today, consist of: St. Anselm, Gaunilo and Descartes. These three philosophers all have their own arguments for Gods existence, and they all differ in many ways. Philosophers even like to make arguments that refute other philosophers’ arguments. St. Anselm was born in 1033 and died in 1109. St. Anselm was a well-known philosopher in his time and had a much known argument for Gods existence. He started his argument by defining that God is something greater than which nothing else can be thought. He goes on to argue that even though you have thought of something, or have it in your
…show more content…
Anselm’s argument for God’s existence. He starts of by saying that there is a lost island somewhere in the ocean, and this is easily understood in words. But suppose he was to say that is island is the more excellent than all other lands that exist, since you have no doubt that this island exists in your thoughts. And since this island is so excellent it must not only exist in thought but also in reality, therefore this island must exist. Gaunilo says that if it does not exist, than there is some other land in the world that is more excellent than the island, and the island that is already understood by you to be excellent will no longer be excellent. Gaunilo uses this argument to say that you can’t prove something to exist if you have not evidence that it …show more content…
Anselm and from Gaunilo. Descartes has two distinct arguments, The Perfect Argument and The Infinite Argument. Descartes two arguments can be interchangeably used because the two arguments are the same except on uses the words ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’, while the other uses ‘infinite’ and ‘finite’. Descartes first starts by finding what the idea of ‘perfection’ and in his second argument ‘infinite’. Descartes then wonders where these ideas came from. He then makes a claim that states effects aren’t ever realer than their causes, which means something ‘perfect’ must exist to be able to have the idea of ‘perfection’. Descartes goes on to say that he knows he isn’t ‘perfect’ and since he isn’t ‘perfect’, who could have put this idea in his head? His answer is something ‘perfect’, and that something ‘perfect’ must be
Anselm’s argument for God’s existence. He starts of by saying that there is a lost island somewhere in the ocean, and this is easily understood in words. But suppose he was to say that is island is the more excellent than all other lands that exist, since you have no doubt that this island exists in your thoughts. And since this island is so excellent it must not only exist in thought but also in reality, therefore this island must exist. Gaunilo says that if it does not exist, than there is some other land in the world that is more excellent than the island, and the island that is already understood by you to be excellent will no longer be excellent. Gaunilo uses this argument to say that you can’t prove something to exist if you have not evidence that it …show more content…
Anselm and from Gaunilo. Descartes has two distinct arguments, The Perfect Argument and The Infinite Argument. Descartes two arguments can be interchangeably used because the two arguments are the same except on uses the words ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’, while the other uses ‘infinite’ and ‘finite’. Descartes first starts by finding what the idea of ‘perfection’ and in his second argument ‘infinite’. Descartes then wonders where these ideas came from. He then makes a claim that states effects aren’t ever realer than their causes, which means something ‘perfect’ must exist to be able to have the idea of ‘perfection’. Descartes goes on to say that he knows he isn’t ‘perfect’ and since he isn’t ‘perfect’, who could have put this idea in his head? His answer is something ‘perfect’, and that something ‘perfect’ must be