1. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.
2. A God that exists is greater than one that doesn’t.
3. If God does not exist, God is not that than which
nothing greater can be thought.
4. From 3 and 1, we can use a rule called modus tollens
to infer that God does exist.
5. Thus, God exists.
One response to Anselm’s argument that I came across was St. Thomas Aquinas’ Criticism.
Argument from Gradation of Being
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
: Evaluate Aquinas’ argument. Tell me if it is valid, sound, question-begging, etc; what kind of proposition used in the premises (ex: analytic, synthetic, conditional proposition)? Explain yourself. Â Aquinas tries to prove that Anselm’s argument is false. Explain how?
: Moral Arguments
For The Existence of God
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Premise 3: Therefore, God exists.
So here is my question: If there is no God exist, what basis we could have to assert for the objective good or bad, right or wrong? Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. We have no clue to say if that is a fish or dog without some objective references. Those objective references are provided by God’s nature for the moral values such as love, peace, truth and so on, we can use that references to make the standard for our actions or decisions. However, if there is no God, there would be no objective references. What we have is just one person’s viewpoint which is not valid to apply for anyone else’s viewpoint. For example, when you see a lion eats a zebra, there is nothing morally wrong. The lion is just being a lion since animals do not have any definition of moral. So if there is no God, we could view human behavior in the same way with animals, no actions are morally right or wrong. But the right or wrong does exist, our moral experiences convince us that the moral values do exist. whenever you say “that is unfair or that is not right”, you are experiencing your belief in the existence of the moral values. In my conclusion, the moral arguments are soundness, those premises are true and valid based on human moral values. And those existences of objective moral prove us that there is the existence of God.