Anselm, in the Ontological argument defines God as the being than which no greater can be conceived, stating that even a fool who denies the existence of God can have knowledge and an understanding of this definition and can still comprehend what God is thought to be, namely the being than which no greater can be conceived; after this definition of God is accepted, Anselm attempts to correlate existence with his definition of God. If we were to envisage a being than which no greater can be conceived, then this being would exist solely in our understanding; however if this being were to also exist in reality, as well as in the understanding then it would indisputably be greater than the being than which no greater can be conceived that exists solely in our understanding; Anselm then goes on to propose that admitting to the understanding of the concept of God, is basically admitting to God’s existence, this means that God has to exist in reality as well as the understanding as the being than which no greater can be conceived must fulfill existence in all forms of being in order to satisfy the definition as if God only exists in our understanding then we could conceive of a greater being that exists in both the understanding and reality which would undermine the original definition of the being than which no greater can be conceived; in other words, for God to truly be the being than which no greater can be conceived, he must exist in reality as well as in our understanding - as Anselm himself said, "Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be."
Anselm’s ontological argument is an a priori deductive argument that relies on logic and analytical processes to attempt to justify the existence of God, Anselm’s argument is structured in a way that once we accept that God is the being than which no greater can be conceived we are forced into accepting Anselm’s conclusion. This is a deviation away from other existence arguments, which are based on inductive a posteriori observations. Due to the fact that the ontological argument is a priori deductive we are left in a situation where we cannot deny its conclusion, instead a full analysis of the argument is necessary in order for one to criticize the argument. It has been suggested that Anselm’s argument was most likely envisaged for theists. This prompts many questions about the true nature and intentions of Anselm’s argument as if Anselm primarily wishes to understand God rather than prove his existence then the argument can offer no proof for the existence of God to the atheist. Therefore it can be said that the Ontological argument does not prove God’s existence and it leaves the non-believer unconvinced.
Gaunilo, was heavily critical of the ontological argument; in his perfect island argument he makes use of the exact same logic as Anselm’s formulation to envisage and create his own argument but instead of arguing for the existence of God he applies Anselm’s logic for the existence of a perfect island. In his argument Guanilo aims at emphasizing the absurdity and flaws behind Anselm’s logic that anything perfect must exist. This underlying fault of the ontological argument is that it attempts to "define" objects into existence, something which is obviously illogical. By utilizing Anselm's logic one could argue for the existence of any object which can be seen as having a perfect version of itself (perfect car, perfect country) which via the utilization of Anselm’s logic such perfect objects would exist, therefore his argument is heavily flawed and completely ludicrous. However, Anselm countered Guanilo’s argument by arguing that his ideas only apply to necessary being, in other words God is necessary and islands are not. Anselm also emphasizes the fact that islands are limited and new and improved perfect islands can always be envisaged whereas God, who is the being that no greater can be conceived is unique and unlimited. These so-called perfect objects cannot be attributed and compared to God, as God is defined as that than which no greater can be conceived. Anselm insisted that Guanilo had misunderstood the argument and he concluded that his argument only applies to God, as God is the only thing that no greater can be conceived and his logic cannot be applied to objects that may or may not be perfect depending on their own realms.
Gaunilo’s objection definitely raises question marks about the logical flow and ideologies behind Anselm’s argument and prompts much skepticism about the flaws associated with proving the existence of God. Guanilo’s critique of Anselm’s forced him to make a critical adjustment to his argument. This adjustment was necessary and does, to a certain extent save Anselm from the main flaws of his argument, yet, despite the alteration his argument still fails in proving the existence of God as it is impossible to prove such an existence via the use of reasoning and definitions alone. Guanilo, through his formulation of the ‘perfect island’ heavily criticizes the logic and reasoning behind Anselm’s argument by emphasizing the fact that objects cannot be ‘defined’ into existence, as this is extremely illogical. Anselm however, objects by stating that the proof does not necessitate a complete understanding of God, but merely that we understand that whatever else he may be, God is the being than which no greater being can be conceived. He goes on to say that God, unlike a perfect island cannot be attributed or compared to the greatest thing of a certain type, or even the greatest thing of all, but as the ultimate being than which nothing greater can be conceived. This final idea can be related to only one thing; and that thing, quite obviously is not the perfect island. However, despite the alterations made by Anselm to his argument there still remains a highly noticeable fault within the traditional Ontological proofs for God’s existence, a fault that will always be a hindrance to the philosophical proof for the existence of God. The fact that one may conceive of a necessarily existing being does not provide the slightest evidence that there is actually such a being in existence. Therefore, by analyzing both Anselm’s argument and the objections to his argument it is evident that the logic behind the ontological argument is irrefutable and does not verify with reality.
Total Words; 1,267
Bibliography
Galgut, E., Gildenhuys, A. (2009). Introduction to Philosophy (Course Reader PHI1024F).
Beukes, E., Keene, J. (1963). The Western Heritage of Faith and Reason. (Harper and Row).
Cahn, M. (1995). Classics of Western Philosophy. (Hacket Pub. Co).
Keelan, J. (2006). The Ontological argument – critique.
