Phrase meaning?

Question

"there is a thought in our minds of a being so great that no other being greater than it can be thought of; but it would be impossible for this being not to exist outside our minds, for the simple reason that to exist outside our minds is greater than to exist inside our minds only; therefore such a being, called God, exists." - St. Anselm

Answer 1

If something exists in reality, it is greater than just existing in the mind. Therefore, if we can think, in our mind, of something that is the greatest conceivable being, it must exist in reality, because that is greatest. If it just existed in the mind, it would not be the greatest conceivable being.
*I'm just interpreting the phrase, I don't necessarily agree with this.

Answer 2

I think that it is saying that we have thought of a being that there is no being greater than but a being is even greater if it exists outside out minds since it would mean that more people have thought of it since it is not just in one mind and therefore outside the mind. Therefore the greatest being that you can think of must exist outside of our minds in order to be the greatest. However, that does not mean that it had to be God it could be another god or being techniqually based on what the quote says but Anslem is obviously trying to prove the existence of the God.

Answer 3

Since ontology is the science of being, the Ontological Argument tries to find an answer to the question "Does God exist?".
The main premise of the Ontological Argument is that something that exists in reality is greater than if it existed only in understanding.
For example, a ship that's planned to be build in the constructor’s mind is not as real as the ship that is docked on the docks. That's because we can see, touch or feel the ship that is docked on the docks, but we can not see, nor touch or feel the ship that is in the head of the constructors. (One might object that gravity is one of the things that we can not touch but still exists. That is true. On the other hand, we can still feel gravity, so in this case the objection is not applicable.)
By the writings of St.Anselm and others theologians "God is the greatest being". Combining this premise with the main premise in the ontological argument, God must exist in reality. If he didn't exist in reality he would not be the greatest thing. If God existed only in understanding then by the main premise he would not be the greatest thing, because of the fact that things that exist in reality are greater than things that exist in understanding. From this it follows that God exists in reality, because God is the greatest thing.

Answer 4

it means that we can't fathom or understand something that is beyond human understanding,
because it is literally beyond human understanding, too much for the human mind to grasp.
and god exists because because those things we can't understand
are "greater" than anything we Can understand,
so therefore God exists by the idea that anything "greater" than human understanding exists, but we don't get it.

not really a great theorem by St. Anselm but I don't know if he quite understands either.

Answer 5

Great logic, great conclusion, this 'saint' ! A belief is handed down to us, becomes a thought in our minds, and just because of that it becomes a reality outside- therefore God exists!

He should have stuck to just quoting the scriptures, at least that way he would be believed on account of the 'authority' of the scriptures.

Answer 6

Well, it's not really a phrase - it's a multiple sentence argument for "proving" the existence of God.

Anselm's argument

Anselm of Canterbury was the first to attempt an ontological argument for God's existence.
The ontological argument was first proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) in Chapter 2 of the Proslogion.[2] While Anselm did not propose an ontological system, he was very much concerned with the nature of being. He stated that there are necessary beings — things that cannot not exist — and contingent beings — things that may exist but whose existence is not needed.
Anselm presents the ontological argument as part of a prayer directed to God. He starts with a definition of God, or a necessary assumption about the nature of God, or perhaps both.
"Now we believe that [the Lord] is something that than which nothing greater can be conceived."
Then Anselm asks: does God exist?
"Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not?"
To answer this, first he tries to show that God exists 'in the understanding':
"But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying — something than which nothing greater can be imagined — understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is."
Anselm goes on to justify his assumption, using the analogy of a painter:
"For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
"Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding."
Now Anselm introduces another assumption (some authors have argued that this assumption introduces a new version of the argument):
"And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater."
"Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be."
Anselm has thus found a contradiction, and from that contradiction, he draws his conclusion:
"There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."
[edit]
A modern description of the argument
Anselm's Argument may be summarized thus:
God is, by definition, a being greater than which nothing can be conceived (imagined).
Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind.
God must exist in reality; if God did not, then God would not be that than which nothing greater can be conceived (imagined).
This is a shorter modern version of the argument. Anselm framed the argument as a reductio ad absurdum wherein he tried to show that the assumption that God does not exist leads to a logical contradiction. The following steps more closely follow Anselm's line of reasoning:
God is the entity greater than which no entity can be conceived.
The concept of God exists in human understanding.
God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
From 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 an entity can be conceived that is greater than God, the entity greater than which no thing can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore, God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).
[edit]
Anselm's second argument
Anselm in his Proslogion 3 made another a priori argument for God, this time based on the idea of necessary existence. He claimed that if God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent. Therefore, God must be necessary. To sum it up:
God is that entity compared to which nothing greater can be conceived.
It is greater to be necessary than not.
God must be necessary.
God necessarily exists."

Of course, the existence of God cannot be "proven" by logic - otherwise faith would be redundant.

"The Flaw in Anselm's Proof

After reviewing it for several centuries, philosophers — especially logicians — have found the flaw in Anselm's proof. (Actually it was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed it.) Its "fatal flaw" lies in his second premise — that existence is a form of perfection. This is not the case. It is, rather, it is a value judgement, that we — as creatures who exist — make, from an understandably biased viewpoint."

Answer 7

jasmine

what you are arguing is a God created by your words. it cannot be greater than those words. certainly it is there because of a particular combination of words has been proposed by you or that philosopher who created it for the first of all.

this is the only problem before the humanity. we create our individual gods. one is your god, the other is your neighbor's god. you create them at will, you edit them at will and then you delete them at will.

such gods are not greater than you and your diction.

you have to see and then submit to the god which is the whole existence of this universe. whose existence does not depend on your words and sentences. whose existence is beyond the religions and sicences.

i have written my article "who is the biggest - Me, My mind or My God?" go through the article. its url is

http://www.lightinlife.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=93

Answer 8

1. (Even) the Fool has the concept of that than which no greater can be conceived.
2. (Hence) (Even) the Fool believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding.
3. No one who believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can be conceived exists only in the understanding.
4. (Hence) (Even) the Fool cannot reasonably deny that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality
5. (Hence) That than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality

Discussion and criticism at the link that follows.

Answer 9

when you see something its actually seen inside your head only..and thinking also happens inside your head..now when what you think matches with what you see then you say that i am thinking about a thing that exists.. people think about GOD to be the greatest among all thoughts..but HE is not "seen"..but the one who is limited to rules of visibility or physical perception as a parameter can not be GOD..and so even the GOD as a thought is so great that HE can exist although not seen..

Answer 10

It means, Have Faith.

Seeing God is not as valuable and meaningful as knowing him in your mind.

I think the quote is a pile of shite. But, that is what he is saying.