34. Anselm of Canterbury

The last great Platonic theologian/philosopher of medieval Christian history was Anselm, who is best known for his so-called ontological argument for the existence of God, as well as his theory of the atonement, sometimes called the 'commercial theory,' or the 'satisfaction theory.' This lecture summarizes the first of these, and introduces the second, with the completion of the discussion coming in the next presentation.

[@sidneycline3366]

I was listening to this lecture while driving and answering questions aloud as one might do who is alone on a long drive. When the question arose if anyone could translate cur deus homo, I said aloud, "I can." Now, Sidney is not a common name, but as it happens, it's my name. When my offer to answer the question was immediately followed with Sidney being called upon to answer, something short circuited in my brain. I was overrun with shock and paranoia. Then later "Sidney" was referenced as a strong republican spitting in the face of the president, I began to wonder if I had been at this lecture and somehow blocked it out. Strange experience.

[@DigitalGnosis]

Mr Gore, There is an atheist KZbinr called Cosmic Skeptic who made a video on the ontological argument. He was heavily influenced by a secular philosophy A level curriculums interpretation of what the ontological argument is here in the UK. What saddens me is that his video has hundreds of thousands of views. He proposed the ontological argument to be analogous to : God exists, therefore God exists but I feel he has completely missed the point of the argument from your interpretation. The first proposition is just a statement about God (whether you believe in him or not) is the greatest conceivable being. The second proposition is that the greatest conceivable being exists (rather than not existing) because then by definition it would not be the greatest conceivable being. This is not the same as saying the greatest conceivable being exists (as in I believe there is a God). the word "exists" is a homophone. The third proposition is therefore God exists simply follows on deductively, if God is the greatest conceivable being and the greatest conceivable being is one that exists then God exists (rather than not). This is an argument for Gods existence but it does rest on the presupposition that there is a God, a greatest conceivable being at all or why there must be a greatest conceivable being that exists as opposed to not and this is where modern atheists get stuck because they don't agree with the axiom they cannot even engage with the logic of the argument because it works within a paradigm they don't understand. (this is as far as my understanding Amazon is delivering my copy of Proslogium next week so I could be completely misrepresenting Anselm). The expansion on Platos world of forms with God as the ultimate and immovable thing was interesting. Thank you for your videos. I pray that I will be able to use this knowledge to help address some of the issues facing the modern world in a post-everything culture ripe with nihilism. I also pray that throughout this I will not make an idol of my own intellect or of academic success but instead love God singularly above all else and let the simple truth of Christ prevail over all of these mental exercises.

[@brucegore4373]

Thank you for such thoughtful feedback.

[@nancyhanna8330]

So Anslem was the first to explain the Christian doctrine by using the court analogy . I think he or maybe(people took it from him)sank into the parable more deep that it should be and the parable became the real doctrine

[@brucegore4373]

Anselm sought to explain the atonement based on a metaphor of debt. All theological explanation involves metaphor. Many have found his 'commercial theory' useful.

[@nancyhanna8330]

You said “God got insulted “ This itself raise a question about how God is that vulnerable to an insult from his creature?!

[@riche7691]

No God is immutable in His being except to us

[@samysantarella8287]

Spitting in Gore’s face, the President’s face, or God’s face is the same sin because of what sin is: violating God. The reason there is hell is not because it takes an infinity to repay God because there is no way to change the past, the sin already committed, and thus no way to repay God. That’s why Jesus had to die, because an infinite amount of time could not repay God.

[@NLspartan117]

Sin is thinking you can violate God. God can not really be violated

[@samysantarella8287]

@@NLspartan117 I meant sin is: violating God‘s principles (which includes throwing “stones” prematurely). Thanks for helping me clarify.

[@NLspartan117]

@@samysantarella8287 but Gods principles can not be violated

[@samysantarella8287]

@@NLspartan117 Actually, they can. One of God‘s principles is “you shall not murder.” People are being murdered every day, thus God‘s principles are being violated. And there are countless other examples of people violating God‘s laws/principles. Another example: “love one another,“ Jesus said. When we don’t do that, we violate God‘s principle/law.

[@NLspartan117]

@@samysantarella8287 needless to say murder goes against the principle of love. But the insanity of murder is that you think it can destroy love, because you think you can attack. We think we can destroy Jesus by crucifying Him. But Jesus’ love would not be broken for it is everywhere. Instead He would stay in love and said “father forgive them for they know not what they do”. He didn’t see an attack because He knew He wasn’t being attacked. Gods one and only principle is Oneness, because He is One. How can you place yourself outside of that which is everywhere? Thinking so is insanity because Love never stops. Have you ever seen love that stops? If you have I assure you it wasn’t love. Love simply doesn’t stop and it is strange to think of it as so. Still you think you can make love into fear and perfect peace into war. Romans 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more

[@Navili502]

I think the ontological argument sort of ties into the theological idea of God Whose substance is existence itself.

[@Noone-dc9si]

God bless you Sir for posting these videos

[@brucegore4373]

Thank you!

[@rosemaryhendry4373]

Excellent, the 'spitting' example really helps one to understand the same offence in terms of its severity, as to whom is being spat at. Thank you!

[@MrLindeman]

What a powerful evangelism to the atheists speech Mr. Gore.

[@williamjayaraj2244]

Thank you professor Gore for that wonderful example of spitting on three different beings to explain the cost one has to pay if some one spits on the creator.

[@simongiles9749]

I enjoy your lectures, but I think that teaching these kids that the ontological argument is a potent weapon against atheists, and that atheists are "fragile" is rather setting them up for disappointment.

[@palestinabaddie]

halal

[@zackakin4382]

The monk was Gaunilo.

[@grantalbrecht4402]

right....