Whether God is within our understanding

Question 1

Question: What is a strength of Anselm’s Ontological Argument?

A strength of the ontological argument its definition of God

Answer 1

Answer: Its definition of God as the greatest conceivable being, which is theologically and philosophically convincing.

Question 2

Question: How does Anselm address the challenge of defining something beyond human understanding?

A strength of the ontological argument its definition of God

Answer 2

Answer: Anselm carefully designs the definition of God to avoid this problem, presenting God as the greatest conceivable being.

Question 3

Question: What analogy does Anselm use to explain our understanding of God?

A strength of the ontological argument its definition of God

Answer 3

Answer: Anselm compares understanding God to looking at the sun: we can’t fully gaze at the sun, but we can still see daylight. Similarly, we can’t fully know God, but we can understand that He is the greatest conceivable being.

Question 4

Question: What does Anselm say about partial understanding in his analogy?

A strength of the ontological argument its definition of God

Answer 4

Answer: Anselm argues that even if we cannot fully understand something, it doesn’t mean we don’t understand it at all, similar to how not being able to look directly at the sun doesn’t mean we don’t see sunlight.

Question 5

Question: What quote from Anselm supports his analogy about understanding God?

A strength of the ontological argument its definition of God

Answer 5

Answer: “If you say that what is not entirely understood is not understood and is not in the understanding: say, then, that since someone is not able to gaze upon the purest light of the sun does not see light that is nothing but sunlight.”

Question 6

Question: What objection does Gaunilo raise against P3 of Anselm’s Ontological Argument?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 6

Answer: Gaunilo argues that the greatest conceivable being cannot exist in the mind/understanding because God is beyond our understanding.

Question 7

Question: How does Gaunilo’s objection affect Anselm’s reasoning about God’s existence in reality?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 7

Answer: If God cannot be in the understanding, Anselm cannot reason about whether it would be greater for God to exist in reality as well.

Question 8

Question: What does Gaunilo’s objection imply about the Ontological Argument?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 8

Answer: The Ontological Argument seems to fail because it relies on our ability to understand and reason about things beyond our understanding or reason.

Question 9

Question: What similar argument did Aquinas make against Anselm?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 9

Answer: Aquinas argued that God’s nature, such as the ‘eternal law,’ is beyond our understanding and that people have different understandings of God.

Question 10

Question: What did Aquinas say about the understanding of the word “God”?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 10

Answer: “Perhaps not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought.”

Question 11

Question: What did Gaunilo say about his ability to conceive of the greatest conceivable being?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 11

Answer: “Of God, or a being greater than all others, I could not conceive at all.”

Question 12

Question: What conclusion did Gaunilo draw about the assertion that the supreme nature is in his understanding?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 12

Answer: “So much for the assertion that this supreme nature already is in my understanding.”

Question 13

Question: How does Gaunilo’s view challenge the premise that the greatest conceivable being exists in the mind?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 13

Answer: Gaunilo’s view challenges the premise by arguing that if God is beyond our understanding, He cannot exist in our understanding.

Question 14

Question: Why does Aquinas believe people have different understandings of God?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 14

Answer: Aquinas believes that because God’s nature is beyond our understanding, people naturally have different interpretations and understandings of what God signifies.

Question 15

Question: What is the core weakness in Anselm’s Ontological Argument according to Gaunilo and Aquinas?

Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding

Answer 15

Answer: The core weakness is that it assumes we can understand and reason about God, who is beyond our understanding, making the argument flawed.

Question 16

Question: Why is Gaunilo’s argument considered unsuccessful in the context of the ontological argument?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 16

Answer: Because a full understanding of the greatest conceivable being or of God’s nature is not required for the ontological argument to work.

Question 17

Question: What does Peter van Inwagen explain about Anselm’s understanding of God?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 17

Answer: Van Inwagen explains that Anselm would not accept that we either understand God fully or not at all. Our limited understanding is enough to justify attributing the name “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” to God.

Question 18

Question: How does Anselm describe God’s traits?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 18

Answer: Anselm describes God’s traits as being infinite, such as omnipotence and omniscience, making it impossible to conceive of anything greater.

Question 19

Question: What is the main point Anselm relies on in his argument, according to van Inwagen?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 19

Answer: Anselm relies on the concept of a being greater than which none can be conceived, rather than requiring a full understanding of the being itself.

Question 20

Question: What logical reasoning does Anselm use to conclude that God must exist?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 20

Answer: Anselm argues that since it is greater to exist in reality than merely in the mind, and since God is the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality.

Question 21

Question: What fallacy does van Inwagen accuse Gaunilo of committing?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 21

Answer: Van Inwagen accuses Gaunilo of committing a straw man fallacy by misrepresenting Anselm’s requirement for understanding the being itself rather than the concept.

Question 22

Question: Why is a limited understanding of God sufficient for the ontological argument?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 22

Answer: Because it allows us to grasp the concept of a being greater than which none may be conceived, which is enough to follow Anselm’s reasoning.

Question 23

Question: What does the concept “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” imply about God’s existence?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 23

Answer: It implies that God must exist in reality because existing in reality is greater than existing only in the mind.

Question 24

Question: How does Anselm’s argument use the concept of greatness?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 24

Answer: Anselm’s argument uses the concept of greatness to reason that the greatest conceivable being must exist, as existence in reality is a necessary component of being the greatest.

Question 25

Question: What does Peter van Inwagen’s defense suggest about the ontological argument’s reliance on understanding?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 25

Answer: Van Inwagen’s defense suggests that the ontological argument does not rely on a complete understanding of God, but rather on the coherent concept of the greatest conceivable being.

Question 26

Question: What is Gaunilo’s main criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 26

Answer: Gaunilo argues that when we think about the concept of a being greater than anything we could possibly imagine, the idea of that actual being is not in our understanding.

Question 27

Question: How does Apophatic theology contribute to the criticism of the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 27

Answer: Apophatic theology, particularly the insights of Pseudo-Dionysius, shows that reasoning about God is impossible because God is beyond any human concepts and cannot be grasped by the understanding.

Question 28

Question: What does Pseudo-Dionysius argue about the nature of God?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 28

Answer: Pseudo-Dionysius argues that God is ‘beyond assertion and denial’ and is beyond all philosophical terms, even beyond truth and falsity itself.

Question 29

Question: How does Pseudo-Dionysius’ view affect both atheists and proponents of the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 29

Answer: According to Pseudo-Dionysius, both atheists and proponents of the ontological argument are wrong because God is beyond human concepts and cannot be asserted or denied.

Question 30

Question: What is the core argument of Apophatic theology against the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 30

Answer: The core argument is that God’s transcendent unknowability means God cannot be grasped or understood by human reasoning, making the premises of the ontological argument flawed.

Question 31

Question: What does Gaunilo believe about our understanding of a being greater than anything imaginable?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 31

Answer: Gaunilo believes that the actual being is not within our understanding when we think about the concept of a being greater than anything imaginable.

Question 32

Question: Why does Pseudo-Dionysius claim that God is beyond assertion and denial?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 32

Answer: Because God’s nature is transcendent and unknowable, making it impossible to accurately assert or deny anything about God using human concepts.

Question 33

Question: What implication does Apophatic theology have on philosophical arguments about God?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 33

Answer: It implies that philosophical arguments about God’s existence, including the ontological argument, are inherently flawed because they attempt to reason about something that is beyond human understanding.

Question 34

Question: How does the idea of God being beyond truth and falsity challenge the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 34

Answer: It challenges the ontological argument by suggesting that any claims about God’s existence, including those made by the argument, are meaningless since God transcends such categories.

Question 35

Question: What does Pseudo-Dionysius’ perspective reveal about the limitations of human reasoning in theology?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 35

Answer: It reveals that human reasoning is limited and inadequate for understanding or proving the existence of a transcendent and unknowable God, as attempted in the ontological argument.