Jim Guinee
> Rene Descartes (paraphrasing here) once posited that the
> belief in a perfect, infinite being could not have originated from man --
he based
> this on the notion that people are finite beings, and imperfect ones at
> that, and so he argued it was inconceivable that imperfect, finite beings
> could conceptualize, construct an infinite, perfect deity.
An argument which Descartes borrowed from St. Anselm: (source:
http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/anselm.htm )
===============================
St. Anselm's Ontological Argument
For God's Existence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Background:
St. Anselm (AD 1033-1109) was a brilliant teacher and defender of the
Christian faith. He was also the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury England. He is
well known for his famous motto "Credo ut intelligam," or "I believe in
order to understand," and for his Ontological Agrument for the existence of
God. This unique argument has been debated for centuries among many great
philosophers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Follow St. Anselm's Argument Point By Point:
1) God is defined as the being in which none greater is possible.
2) It is true that the notion of God exists in the understanding (your
mind.)
3) And that God may exist in reality (God is a possible being.)
4) If God only exists in the mind, and may have existed, then God might have
been greater than He is.
5) Then, God might have been greater than He is (if He existed in reality.)
6) Therefore, God is a being which a greater is possible.
7) This is not possible, for God is a being in which a greater is
impossible.
8) Therefore God exists in reality as well as the mind.
==============================
Needless to say, this isn't taken very seriously these days - the
numerous assumptions (apparently largely unquestioned in Anselm's day,
though I guess I don't know that for sure) look more than a little "iffy" in
today's light.
The Descartes version summarized briefly above is a slightly
different argument, falling apart already in the assumption that human
beings actually DO conceive of an infinite, perfect deity (sorry - not even
close).
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
