Anselm And Descartes: The Proof For The Existence Of God
Compare Anselm and Descartes
The proof of the existence of God was a topic of discussion during the early centuries until the first philosophers of the world decided to root for the truth and show the existence of God. In proving the existence of God in certain ways the arguments oppose each other, support each other and also some arguments seem to be more convincing than the other. The empirical arguments and the rationalistic arguments are the two types of arguments used in proving God’s existence. Anselm’s was among the first three important leaders or fathers of the philosophy of the world for finding arguments for the existence of God alongside his colleagues, Aquinas, and Paley. Rene Descartes is another philosopher of the 17th century …show more content…
The primary goal of Anselm’s argument is to show that reasoning it is self-contradictory to deny the existence of some superior being. In Proslogion, Anselm uses the definition of God to prove his existence. He says derives the evidence for the existence of God from the ideas that there must be existing a being than which no greater can be conceived. Through reason, Anselm says that if such a being does not exist, then the superior being which no greater can be conceived can be conceived. This statement then sounds absurd proving that the greater being than no other can conceive and who exists cannot be conceived. Thus, God exists (Rorty). The whole proof, similar to Descartes’s argument it is based on …show more content…
Descartes proposes that we can not exclude the necessary existence from the idea of the Superior being who is perceived to exist the same way we cannot exclude an angle of the triangle from the existence of the triangle. Additionally, he characterizes the arguments as a method of proving essence or the nature of God. Descartes’ argument differs in that he believes the necessary existence cannot be separated from the conceptual existence (Descartes). The differences and similarities in these ontological arguments expose the proofs to criticisms which make them less
The proof of the existence of God was a topic of discussion during the early centuries until the first philosophers of the world decided to root for the truth and show the existence of God. In proving the existence of God in certain ways the arguments oppose each other, support each other and also some arguments seem to be more convincing than the other. The empirical arguments and the rationalistic arguments are the two types of arguments used in proving God’s existence. Anselm’s was among the first three important leaders or fathers of the philosophy of the world for finding arguments for the existence of God alongside his colleagues, Aquinas, and Paley. Rene Descartes is another philosopher of the 17th century …show more content…
The primary goal of Anselm’s argument is to show that reasoning it is self-contradictory to deny the existence of some superior being. In Proslogion, Anselm uses the definition of God to prove his existence. He says derives the evidence for the existence of God from the ideas that there must be existing a being than which no greater can be conceived. Through reason, Anselm says that if such a being does not exist, then the superior being which no greater can be conceived can be conceived. This statement then sounds absurd proving that the greater being than no other can conceive and who exists cannot be conceived. Thus, God exists (Rorty). The whole proof, similar to Descartes’s argument it is based on …show more content…
Descartes proposes that we can not exclude the necessary existence from the idea of the Superior being who is perceived to exist the same way we cannot exclude an angle of the triangle from the existence of the triangle. Additionally, he characterizes the arguments as a method of proving essence or the nature of God. Descartes’ argument differs in that he believes the necessary existence cannot be separated from the conceptual existence (Descartes). The differences and similarities in these ontological arguments expose the proofs to criticisms which make them less