Tag: anselm

Prior to your reading this, I ask that you forgive the mild incoherence involved, for I write this at 5am- only minimally conscious.

The Cartesian attempt falls short for it requires knowledge of God, in order to assert that God exists- Descartes’ begins with a claim of knowledge of perfection and of the attributes of perfection. The truth in the 3rd meditation though warrants greater credit, for this comes from the acknowledgement of the recognition of our finitude- of which as Descartes claims we could not conceive since knowledge of ‘finitude’ relies wholly on that of ‘infinite’, and yet this seems insufficiently satisfactory.

Spinoza’s flaw is much greater, and his work- blasphemous. To attach attributes to ‘God’ is to recognize his like, and to recognize his like is to regard him two, and to regard him two is to mistake him, to mistake him is to have pointed at him, to have pointed is to have admitted limitation for him.

God’s being is truth, but it cannot be through coming into being. His existence cannot be from non-existence.

It is Kant’s discovery that truly brings to light the impossibility of making such assertions concerning God, for to make any assertion requires knowledge of that which we are incapable of. To speak of God’s action is to limit God, in time if nothing else, for to act is to have willed and to willed is to admit of a time prior to having willed and to admit of a time prior to having willed is to limit God.

It can only be true that God’s ‘creation’ was not action as we have conceived action. He realized them fully and created them without innovation, he commenced it without creation, without any aspiration of mind.

Yet to assert even this requires some conception of God, for how can one claim the impossibility of knowledge without knowledge? To assert ignorance requires in itself an acknowledgement of an awareness of the concept of which ignorance is being claimed, this same line of thought- Heidegger describes, “Every inquiry is a seeking. Every seeking gets guided beforehand by what is sought. Inquiry is a cognizant seeking for an entity both with regard to the fact that it is and with regard to its Being as it is. This cognizant seeking can take the form of ‘ investigating’, in which one lays bare that which the question is about and ascertains its character. Any inquiry, as an inquiry about something, has that which is asked about”, to ask of something requires prior cognition of the thing that is asked, and to assert anything requires the same.

It thus becomes so that to say that ‘God cannot be conceived‘ is itself contradictory for the statement relies on a prior conception of God, it must then be true that God can be conceived. And if God can be conceived, God’s existence is self-evident, not through proving the attributes of God, but simply through knowing.

I aim here to argue this, that the non-existence of God is what requires proving, to claim that God does not exist requires a demonstration that the statement is itself not self-contradictory. The fault of a long line of philosophers is their attempt to prove the most self-evident of all truths.

The truth of God is greater than the truth of ‘being’, the latter of which is rarely attempted to be proved. To ask one to prove that there ‘is’, is ridiculous, and yet the same concerning the former is constantly attempted.