Anselm, Aquinas, and Augustine on God's existence

¶ … Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine and the Existence of God

Does God Exist?

This is a reaction paper to the text, "Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine and the Existence of God." The purpose of the text includes analyzing three philosophers' proofs for the existence or non-existence of God. Because three separate philosophers present three differing viewpoints, this reaction paper will address each philosopher independently. The author of the selection concludes that these three opinions has an important relationship to Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, a treatise in which Descartes' meditates on the philosophical system and its ability to prove all things which are certain, and discard any belief in things (like God) that may not be proven (Descartes 24).

Of the three selections reviewed, I agree Augustine's confessions most closely resemble Descartes argumentation and concepts in Meditations, while Anselm and Aquinas' argue proof of God's existence in ways that both align with but also are clearly different from Descartes meditations of the existence of a supreme creator. This paper proves that God can and does exist if one accepts the idea that change cannot stem from infinity, and that thought may not arise from infinity, but rather there must be some object or thing ever-present to inspire the very first "change" or conception. I believe Augustine presents this argument most clearly.

Anselm's Analytic Interpretation of God

In the first excerpt by St. Anselm argues that God does exist stating that mankind believes God to be something greater than what the human mind might conceive. While similar to the idea presented by Descartes that the mind is not something fully discernable and easily interpreted, Descartes is more likely to argue I believe that if man can conceive at all, including conceiving in his or her own actual physical presence and existence, then it is possible to conceive God more tangibly than suggested by Anselm. Anselm uses the analogy of a painter to represent how something can exist even if it is not tangibly conceived or created yet. For example, he states that a painter may have an understanding of a painting before the painting is actually produced, even if the painter does not yet know the painting exists for certainty.

Using this argument Anselm suggests after painting a work of art, the painter creates something tangible, something that is one's interpretation of what exists. Using this analogy Anselm goes on to suggests that God may exist if for no other reason than nothing greater than God can be conceived. Descartes however, may more likely argue that it is very possible for God to exist even if one cannot conceive of his existence with certainty, because there are many facts present in life, including change, that serve to confirm with certainty the possibility one can conceive of something greater than God even if nothing greater than God actually existed.

I do not agree for the sake of argument that simply because one agrees something greater may not exist, that something definitely does exist. This goes against the rationalist beliefs presented by philosopher's like Descartes, whose camp might argue that our minds allow us (like the painter) to conceive ideas that God exists on the assumption that one is using their free will to do so rather than their intellect which I feel Descartes clearly distinguishes (the will) as something possible of error (Descartes 24). I feel Descartes would argue the will does allow for error in judgment because it relies on one's intellect or intelligence, which may vary from person to person.

Aquinas' Presumptions

Aquinas approaches the analysis of God differently assuming one can prove God's existence five distinguished ways. He suggests one may discern proof of God through analysis of facts and change; arguing that the senses confirm change exists, something must stimulate change or exist to facilitate change. Aquinas sums up his treatise by claiming that God is the greatest cause for all change, including being and goodness. I feel Aquinas makes a strong argument stating that conscious intelligence must direct all action and change, even that which is not conscious in nature. I believe this aligns with the idea presented by Descartes that the mind exists separate of the intellect. Aquinas seems to believe that intellect alone or intelligence is enough to prove the existence of God, for something present or Great must be able to direct nature using this basis of intelligence, which the subconscious or unconscious is not capable of perceiving.

Augustine's Arguments

Augustine's arguments are most dissimilar from those presented by Aquinas and Anselm. I feel Augustine's arguments most closely align with Descartes philosophical interpretation of God presented in Meditations. One who meditates as defined by Descartes is one who can affirm only that he or she exists, but may not be able to affirm what he or she perceives or thinks to exist because such perceptions are not as clear or distinct as one's perceptions of self (Egan 1). Augustine seems to favor the idea that human beings recognize that they are in fact images of God, but not "consubstantial with Him," yet near to the Supreme Being. He supports his argument stating, "We both are and know we are and delight in our being and our knowledge of it." feel this argument proves that man exists, and man believes that he may exist in the likeness of God, but this is not verifiable proof that God himself exists as something that can be proven accurately without skepticism. Augustine further aligns himself with Descartes' fourth Meditations suggesting and agreeing that mankind may perceive many things in the mind and hold in memory, but such things do not represent a clear manifestation of something tangible, physical and true to life. He begs the question, "what if you are deceived?" Clearly I feel one may argue that it is possible that mankind be deceived, and because of this man can exist. Augustine suggests something that is "actual" or true and physical cannot be perceived simultaneously as something "potential."

He goes on to suggest that change must evolve from other things, but this exchange or change of things do not stem from infinity or their might not be a first cause for change. This first cause of change argues Augustine, is God naturally; because one thing cannot change without an instigator. Augustine argues in favor of efficient causation, meaning that nothing can cause itself to come into being without a propagator, thus a series of efficient causes is needed to prove or disprove anything. A first cause is therefore necessary, one that people label as God.

In Descartes third Meditation he suggests the Mediator can only be certain that outside sources are the cause for ideas and sensory perceptions. In many ways we can see how Augustine is similar to Descartes' in his argument for the existence of God, most specifically in his reasoning that knowledge comes from clear and distinct perceptions, evident in his statement that one object or thing cannot "be" and "possibly be" at the same time (using the analogy of what can and cannot be simultaneously) (Egan 2).