dfnj2006 wrote:

Mark Earnest wrote:

"dfnj2006" <dfnj2006@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164688503.394149.205680@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...

God is just a word. How can you deny the word God exists. If people
stopped using the word God then God would cease to exist. God only
exists in our sentences.

If people can talk about God, then they must be talking about something.
Hint: to talk about something is to examine it from various angles.

The meaning of the word God is unique to each person's delusion. But
that's not what I am saying about the existence of God. God is just a
word. God exists because the word God exists.

AKA The Ontological Argument?

Discovering philosophy / Thomas I. White. --Brief ed.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0135080037/

A) The Ontological Argument: Saint Anselm

[ontological argument] The ontological argument is St. Anselm's
argument for the existence of God. It claims that by merely
contemplating the notion of God as
"something-thah-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," we become aware
that God must exist.

St. Anselm (1033-1109) was born in Italy, entered the monastery against
the objections of his father, and became a monk, abbot, and teacher in
the monastery of Bee. In 1093, he was made Archbishop of Canterbury and
took an active role in a dispute concerning the relationship between
the authority of the King and that of the Pope. His most famous works
on the existence of God are the Monologion and Proslogion.

The most famous argument of this sort, the ontological argument, is
offered by the early medieval thinker Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm
himself did not use the word "ontological" when he made his argument.
But ever since Irnmanuel Kant referred to it this way, the label has
stuck. He chose "ontological" because the argument is based on the
concept of the most perfect being. (Ontos is Greek for "being.")

Anselm's argument has had a long and controversial history. During its
first seven hundred years, the argument had as many defenders as
attackers. About two hundred years ago, most philosophers decided it
was wrong, but debate over it has started again in our own day. Some
people hail it as a genuine proof of God's existence. Others dismiss it
as philosophical flimflam.

For all of that, Anselm's argument is unquestionably one of the most
important proofs offered for the existence of God. The argument is
found in Anselm's Proslogion.

"That God Truly Exists"

"Well then, Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me that I
may understand, as much as you see fit, that You exist as we believe
You to exist, and that You are what we believe You to be. Now we
believe that You are something than which nothing greater can be
thought. Or can it be that a thing of such a nature does not exist,
since "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God" [Psalms, xiii.
I, lii. I]? But surely, when this same Fool hears what I am speaking
about, namely "something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought," he
understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even
if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing
for an object to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand
that an object actually exists. Thus, when a painter plans beforehand
what he is going to execute, he has [the picture] in his mind, but he
does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet
executed it. However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has
it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made
it. Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that
something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought exists in the mind,
since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood
is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought
cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind
even, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater. If
then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind
alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is
that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is obviously
impossible. Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that
something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists both in the
mind and in reality."

"That God Cannot Be Thought Not to Exist"

"And certainly this being so truly exists that it cannot be even
thought not to exist. For something can be thought to exist that cannot
be thought not to exist, and this is greater than that which can be
thought not to exist. Hence, if
that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought can be thought not to
exist, then that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is not the same
as that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, which is absurd.
Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists so truly then,
that it cannot be even thought not to exist."

"And You, Lord our God, are this being. You exist so truly, Lord my
God, that you cannot even be thought not to exist. And this is as it
should be, for if some intelligence could think of something better
than You, the creature would be above its creator and would judge its
creator-and that is completely absurd. In fact, everything else there
is, except you alone, can be thought of as not existing, you alone,
then, of all things most truly exist and therefore of all things
possess existence to the highest degree-, for anything else does not
exist as truly, and so possesses existence to a lesser degree. Why then
did "the Fool say in his heart, there is no God" [Ps. xiii. 1, lii. I]
when it is so evident to any rational mind that you of all things exist
to the highest degree? Why indeed, unless because he was stupid and a
fool?"

- What Anselm Has in Mind

Anselm's argument is fairly simple. Push your imagination as hard as
you can and think of the most perfect, most supreme being. That is
Anselm's "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought." In particular,
imagine that this being is so great, so perfect that it cannot even be
thought not to exist. Do you have that in mind? If so, you should also
have a strong sense that this being must actually exist. Anselm would
say that this most perfect being that you have envisioned is God. So,
he thinks, anyone who truly understands the idea of the greatest
possible being should feel certain that God must actually exist.

Moreover, by realizing that God is a being whose nonexistence we cannot
even imagine, Anselm would say that we are aware of God's "necessary
existence." That is, if God's existence is "necessary," to say that God
does not exist is as self-contradictory as saying, "Fire is cold." To
claim that something that must exist cannot exist is so illogical that
it is ridiculous.

In other words, Anselm thinks that as our minds explore the idea of the
greatest possible being imaginable, we will realize that in addition to
being all-powerful, all-knowing, all-just, all-merciful, and
all-loving, its level of existence is so great that it must have
existed from eternity, will go on forever, and cannot even be thought
of as not existing. Anselm is convinced that if we have a solid grasp
of the idea of the "greatest possible being," then we should have no
doubt about God's existence. Only a fool would think otherwise.

- Reason Alone

Notice that this argument relies on nothing but reason alone. Unlike
Paley and Thomas Aquinas, Anselm does not draw his reasons for God's
existence from the world of nature. Rather, he takes an idea, the
concept that God is the most perfect being imaginable
"that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought"and claims that a purely
intellectual examination of that concept shows that such a being must
exist in reality as well as in our minds as an idea. Furthermore,
Anselm thinks that if we understand the concept properly, we should see
that the statement "God does not exist" is a logical contradiction. So
Anselm makes his point about God's existence purely by logic, not by
reference to the physical world.

- Anselm's Platonism

The material world offers us no evidence of a necessarily existing,
most perfect being. Where does such an idea come from then? Anselm
would say it results from the fact that such a being actually exists
and that our minds discern that fact. This style of thinking makes
Anselm in essence a Platonist.

Like Plato, Anselm assumes that the ideas in our minds are not simply
arbitrary creations of our imagination. Instead, he believes they are
connected to some higher reality which is superior to the senses. Plato
thinks that our conceptions of justice, fairness, beauty, and the like
come from actual existing, nonmaterial entities that we discover with
our "mind's eye," as it were. If there were no such thing as the
metaphysical entity "Justice itself," for example, Plato would say that
we would have no idea of justice in our minds. Anselm is from the same
school of thought. We are able to fashion a mental image of a "most
perfect" being only because one actually exists. And if we do have such
an idea, we can conclude that such a being must exist.

Anselm's argument has a certain appeal. We can all think of a being
"that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought." But does this mean that
Anselm has proven that God exists?

- Anselm's Critics

- : Guanilo. As persuasive as Anselm's argument may seem, it has no
shortage of critics. Its first critic was a French monk named Guanilo
of Marmoutier, who lived at the same time as Anselm. Speaking "on
behalf of the Fool," Guanilo rejects Anselm's contention that simply
imagining the idea of a most perfect being proves that it exists. If
that were the case, he says, imagining something like a "most perfect"
island would "prove" that it exists. He explains,

"For example, they say that there is in the ocean somewhere an island
which, because of the difficulty (or rather the impossibility) of
finding that which does not exist, some have called the "Lost Island."
And the story goes that it is blessed with all manner of priceless
riches and delights in abundance, . . . and, having no owner or
inhabitant, it is superior everywhere in abundance of riches to all
those other lands that men inhabit. Now, if anyone tell me that it is
like this, I shall easily understand what is said, since nothing is
difficult about it. But if he should then go on to say, as though it
were a logical consequence of this: You cannot any more doubt that this
island that is more excellent than all other lands truly exists
somewhere in reality than you can doubt that it is in your mind; and
since it is more excellent to exist not only in the mind alone but also
in reality, therefore it must needs be that it exists. For if it did
not exist, any other land existing in reality would be more excellent
than it, and so this island, already conceived by you to be more
excellent than others, will not be more excellent. IF, I say, someone
wishes thus to persuade me that this island really exists beyond all
doubt, I should either think that he was joking, or I should find it
hard to decide which of us I ought to judge the bigger fool-I, if I
agreed with him, or he, if he thought that he had proved the existence
of this island with any certainty, unless he had first convinced me
that its very excellence exists in my mind precisely as a thing
existing truly and indubitably and not just as something unreal or
doubtfully real."
-A Reply to the Foregoing by a Certain Writer on Behalf of the Fool

Guanilo sees no contradiction in conceiving of a most perfect being and
the same time doubting its existence. "When have I said," he continues,

"that there truly existed some being that is "greater than everything,"
such that from this it could be proved to me that this same being
really existed to such a degree that it could not be thought not to
exist? That is why it must first be conclusively proved by argument
that there is some higher nature, namely that which is greater and
better than all the things that are, so that from this we can also
infer everything else which necessarily cannot be wanting to what is
greater and better than everything."

- : Thomas Aquinas. About a century later, Thomas Aquinas joined
Guanilo in criticizing Anselm. As you saw earlier in this chapter,
Aquinas tries to derive God's existence by pointing to the material
world rather than proving it by reasoning alone. Like Guanilo, Aquinas
thinks that the idea of a most perfect being can certainly exist only
as an idea with no counterpart in reality, and he explicitly rejects
Anselm's argument on grounds similar to Guanilo. Aquinas writes,

"Perhaps not everyone who hears this name God understands it to signify
something than which nothing greater can be thought. . . . Yet, [even]
granted that everyone understands that by this name God is signified
something than which nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it
does not therefore follow that he understands that what the name
signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it
be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there
actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought;
and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not
exist."
-Summa Theologiae

- : David Hume. About 500 years after Aquinas, we find David Hume also
challenging Anselm. Like Aquinas, Hume thinks it is impossible to argue
for God's existence from reason alone. Nor does he see any logical
contradiction in imagining God's nonexistence. As Hume puts this:

"I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in
pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any
arguments a priori* Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary
implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable,
implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also
conceive as nonexistent. There is no Being, therefore, whose
nonexistence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no Being,
whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely
decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it."

"It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent Being; and
this necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by
asserting that, if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should
perceive it to be as impossible for him not to exist as for twice two
not to be four. But it is evident, that this can never happen, while
our faculties remain the same as at present. It will still be possible
for us, at any time, to conceive the non-existence of what we formerly
conceived to exist; nor can the mind ever lie under a necessity of
supposing any object to remain always in being; in the same manner as
we lie under a necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four."
-Dialogues on Natural Religion

*When Hume refers to an a priori argument he means an argument that
relies on reason alone. This stands in contrast to an a posteriori
argument, which draws its conclusion from empirical evidence.

*a priori: An a priori argument relies on reason alone.

*a posteriori: An a posteriori argument draws its conclusion from
empirical evidence.

Stop and think about the statement "2 + 2 = 4." Now try to think
logically that "2 + 2" equals something else. It is hard to do. In
fact, as long as you are thinking in line with the rules of reason, it
is impossible. Now call to mind your image of a "most perfect being"
and imagine that it really exists. Now try to imagine that it does not
exist. It is much easier to do that than it is to imagine that "2 + 2"
equals something other than 4, isn't it?

This is just Hume's point. As long as we can even conceive of God's
nonexistence, it is not contradictory to say "God does not exist." In
short, Hume not only thinks that Anselm's argument doesn't win the day,
he thinks it doesn't even leave the starting gate.

- : Anselm's Critics Reviewed. Anselm's case is simple and
straightforward; Guanilo, Aquinas, and Hume reject it in an equally
simple and straightforward way. Anselm says it is contradictory to
think that "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought" does not exist
in reality as well as in the mind. The other three thinkers flatly
disagree. Understanding a concept does not prove that the entity
represented by the idea exists. A phoenix is a beautiful bird that
lives 500 years, then is consumed by fire in order to be reborn out of
the ashes. We can all understand what a phoenix is, but that doesn't
prove that such a bird exists.

Lest you think that these philosophers are merely biased against the
idea of God, remember that at least two of them, Guanilo and Aquinas,
believe devoutly in God. They agree with Anselm's conclusion. They just
don't think that Anselm's argument proves it.

- Anselm's Reply: A One-Concept-Only Argument

Good philosophers always have intelligent responses to their critics.
Since Guanilo lived at the same time as Anselm, we have the good
fortune of knowing exactly how Anselm replied to the criticism.

The essence of Anselm's defense is that his argument works for one
concept, and one concept only-the concept of
"that-than-which-a-greater-can-not-be-thought." Guanilo's claim that we
can imagine a fantastic "Lost Island" is beside the point. As Anselm
explains,

"Only that being in which there is neither beginning nor end nor
conjunction of parts, and that thought does not discern save as a whole
in every place and at every time, cannot be thought as not existing."
-A Reply to the Foregoing by the Author of the Book in Question

Any other concept we can imagine is irrelevant. His argument, Anselm
says applies to only one concept. And if we come up with a being that
we can imagine not existing, then we have the wrong concept in mind:

"When, therefore, one thinks of
that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought, if one thinks of what can
not exist, one does not think of
that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought. Now the same thing cannot
at the same time be thought of and not thought of. For this reason he
who thinks of that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought does not
think of something that can not exist but something that cannot not
exist. Therefore what he thinks of exists necessarily, since whatever
can not exist is not what he thinks of."
-A Reply

This answer is either very clever or very good. Anselm claims that his
two "proofs"-(1) conceiving an idea of the "greatest possible being"
automatically implies the existence of that being and (2) imagining the
nonexistence of this being is self-contradictory-hold for one and only
one concept, "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought." If his
proofs are true for only this concept, Anselm can dismiss any
counterexample as comparing apples and oranges.

How does Anselm's reply hold up? Is Anselm cheating, or is he right?
Ordinarily, we would not take a "one-concept argument" seriously.
Intellectual custom usually does not let us defend a conclusion by
saying that the idea on which it is based is so unique that special
rules apply. Still, there is something about this concept that is hard
to ignore. Might not things indeed be different when it comes to the
greatest imaginable being? Is it absolutely impossible to conceive of
an argument that applies only to one case? In this one instance only,
might it not be that the nonexistence of such an entity is in fact
self-contradictory?

The simple fact that this argument has been debated as a viable proof
for God's existence for almost a thousand years is worth noting.
Anselm's argument may not be conclusive, and it may not be universally
accepted. But its enduring appeal and its tenacity suggest that it has
something important to say.

Discovering philosophy / Thomas I. White. --Brief ed.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0135080037/