Another argument that a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant insisted strongly on was that, the word 'exists' may not be used as a simple quality of god. The word 'God' may indeed include goodness, almightiness, wisdom etc, but not 'existence' and therefore the argument that it is possible to dispute the existence of god through the actual meaning of the word `god' is also completely flawed. I also strongly agree with Immanuel Kant. It is simply impossible to define existence of something through the actual meaning of the word. For example I could be trying to define the existence of something lets call it 'X' by this Anselm's argument, I could actually argue the existence of 'X' through the actual meaning of 'X.' Personally I feel this to be ridiculous, one cannot define the existence of something through the meaning of the very thing trying to be proved, it just isn't possible, and Immanuel Kant's Criticism explains exactly this.
A great example which Immanuel Kant used was '£100 in my pocket does not mean they exist in my wallet.' It just shows how we need reasons for believing something to exist, for example, one needs reasons for believing the existence of god, and not simply a definition of what god might be if he existed. And quite frankly, Anselm's ontological argument does not have reasons to explain the existence of god, and it is due to that that I cannot believe or agree with any of his ontological argument.
To conclude this critical overview of Anselm's ontological argument. I will say that personally I fail to see any sense in his argument. This being because; all of the main arguments can be flawed, and this is because there is no reasoning. One needs some sort of reasoning to believe an argument; this argument simply gives a definition of what god might be if he did exist, no reasons for his existence.
How far does the Ontological argument provide the existence of God?
'Ontological' means 'nature of being. It is a branch of metaphysics and set of entities presupposed by a theory. It states that if we understand the meaning of the word God we will realise that God exists, it is in the very nature of God that he should exist. And God wouldn't be God if he didn't exist. The ontological argument answers the question 'What is the concept of God?' It is an 'a priori' argument, not an argument based on the interpretation of evidence but an argument before experience. This is dissimilar to an 'a posteriori' argument which only gives merely probability unlike an 'a priori' argument, which can be sound and offer reliable proof. It's an argument based on Logic. Logical truths are true by definition. We know they are true independently of experience e.g. We do not need to check that all circle as are round because a circle cannot be anything else but round, it is tur by definition. In order to determine the soundness of the argument, we need to consider, not the probability of any evidence but the logical coherence of the argument. To analyse the logical coherence we must look to whether you can define something into existence and also 'Is existence a predicate?'
There are two main principal contributors to the 'classical argument' St Anselm of Canterbury and Rene Descartes. Anselm's defined God as 'a liquid quo nihil maior cogitari possit', which means 'that than nothing greater can be conceived'. Then he says it is better to exist in reality than in the mind alone. Therefore God exists. He also says that even the atheist must have a definition of God, if only to dismiss His existence.
What does it mean to say that God is 'necessary?'
Many philosophers and theologians have provided varying ideas about how to prove the existence of God, the ontological and Cosmological arguments are two different arguments which attempt to prove that god is necesary
The ontological argument, is one of the argument that attempts to prove that God is necessary, The main component of the Ontological argument can be found in the Anselm's "Proslogion" which is a short work that tries to demonstrate both the existence and the nature of God. His main aim in writing the Proslogion is not to directly prove the existence of God but to moreover, to show the relationship between faith and reason. The Ontological Argument is a 'priori argument' this means that the conculsion comes not from the use of reason or proof but if the premises that are put into the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. This means that if I know what the definition of something is, I do not then need a test to determine the truth or falsity of a statement. For example, I understand what a triangle is, it has three angles that add up to 180 degrees. I do not need any evidence to prove the truth in the statement a triangle has three angles.
Anselm defined God as: 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived.' This is a valid definition, for if you are an atheist or a theist then you have some kind of 'intuitive understanding of the concept of God. God is by definition, 'greater than which can be concieved,' through this definition, Anslem attempts to prove that not only does God exist in the mind but also in reality. Anselm uses the example of "the fool" to prove his point on God's existence. He says that when "the fool" says that "There is no God" in Psalms, he must therefore understand what he hears , and what he understands in his intellect by the term "God". Therefore, if he knows what God is, God must exist as it is impossible to know what something is if it does not exist.
There are two types of existence, we can concieve things that exist in reality, but we can also concieve things that do not. It could be argued that Spiderman exists; if not exactly how we concieve him, it is logically possible that he could exist. The fact that we are able to concieve such a being who is capable of performing acts that morals are not, at least points out that there is a possibility that he exisits. This same argument can also be applied to God, he exists in the mind, as we all have a definition of Him and it is not logically impossible that He exists in reality. However things that exist in reality are greater than those that exist in the mind, 'Greater than which nothing can be concieved', Anslem is suggested that if you concieve something greater in the mind there is a possibility that it exists in reality, would make it's existence greater for example in terms of being more powerful and freer etc in comparison to just being a figment of someones imagination. Therefore God must exist in reality as well as in the imagination, because if he just existed in the imagination then there could logically be 'a being greater than can be concieved' in reality. There is no chance of God not existing because he exists in our minds, and Anslem states that we are as human beings aware of this factors. (because one must actually be in order for another to actualise something else). This would mean that there would be no actualisation of beings and objects would cease to exist. Due to the fact that objects and beings do exist, there must be a necessary being whom is immutable, timeless, infinite, one and actual.
Anslem state that God was "that than which can be thought not to exist is not as great as that which cannot be thought not to exist." Therefore, to say that God can be thought not to exist if the definition of God is "that than which none greater can be conceived" contradicts the previous statement and this indicates that God necessarily exists. Anslem suggested that God must be a necessary being (He must exist). This is because God is omnipotent and his existence doesn't rely upon anything else, he is unque unlike anty contingenmt items eg a perfect island. With everything else in the world-apart from God-their existence is reliant upon something else. However, God's existence is part of his essence. As Gottfried Leibniz said: "There must exist some one Being of metaphysical necessity, that is, to whose essence existence belongs.' Consequently, according to Anselm, He must be necessary.If something than which nothing greater can be thought of could be thought of as not existing, then something than which nothing greater can be thought of would not be something than which nothing greater can be thought of, which is an outright contradiction and thus absurd. Something than which nothing greater can be thought of has such a high degree of existence, that is, necessary existence, that it cannot be thought of as not existing, that is, its nonexistence is impossible.
Descartes moderated the ontological argument and said that "a supremely perfect being" must exist as existence is a defining predicate. He attempts to prove this concept by trying to portray it by using an example of a triangle. He says that "existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than the fact that its three angles equal two right angles can be separated from the essence of the triangle". Descartes is basically saying that by definition, a triangle must have three angles and in the same way, he is saying that that 'existence' must be a predicate that is included in the defining qualities that God holds. Descartes tried to prove the necessary existence of God through this argument:
1.If there is a God it is a perfect being;
2. A perfect being possesses all possible perfections;
3. Existence is a perfection;
4. Therefore, God necessarily possesses the quality of existence. Simply, God exists.
Norman Malcolm, a twentieth century philosopher also attempted to strengthen the Ontological argument. Malcolm was very careful in his attempt to prove that God existed. His argument was based on two statements. The first was what if God exists, then his existence is necessary. The second statement argues that if God does not exist, his existence is impossible. However, since we cannot say that God's existence is impossible, his existence is therefore necessary.
Another argument which sets about trying to prove the 'necessary' existence of God is the cosmological argument. The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, as propounded by Thomas Aquinas, is also known as the Third Way. It is the Third of Five ways in Aquinas's masterpiece, "The Summa" (The Five Ways). The cosmological argument is based ultimately on the existence of the cosmos (hence the name) and its main gist is that for something to move it must first be caused to move by something else.
The Cosmological argument is developed around a distinction between that which has necessary existence and that which is contingent. A thing that has necessary existence must exist in all possible worlds, whereas a thing that is contingent may go out of existence. It is an undisbutable fact that everything contingent exists. Something cannot just bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence which is illogical . Therefore there mist have been something before time which caused the existence. Scientist think that the world began with the Big Bang, and that over the course of the universe we have undergone a process of evolution. Whether or not this theory is correct, the cosmological argument states that there cannot be infinite regress: a chain of events cannot go back to the beginning of time, because then 'What caused the Big Bang?'.. Science seeks to know how the universe works. But it cannot answer the question, "Why the universe?" On a smaller scale, there is no obvious reason why our world and the life in it should exist. Unless the world is contingent on something or someone it might just as well not exist. So there must have been a higher being which brought the world into existence, he must be a first or prime mover which caused this, owing nothing outside hiself. This higher being is necessary because without him there would not be a contingent universe.
Thomas Aquinas also used the concept of motion to initiate his cosmological argument. His approach varied somewhat from those which had gone before. If there isn't a first movement, nothing else can move. At the same time, an infinite regress of movement isn't possible. This implies that there must be a first cause (an "efficient" cause) because without that there could be no other causes. He added that this cause must be a "being". Beings either exist or they don't. There is no reason to suppose that the world has to exist. But it does exist. Therefore something which causes the world must necessarily exist. As he put it, "Necessary reality is always actual. It is never balanced between existing and not existing." A necessary being can't logically be caused by any other being. If it were, then the other being would be the necessary one. This being is one which has "of itself its own necessity" owing nothing outside itself existing before anything else did. An essential property of a necessary being is eternality. If then it could be made plausible that the universe began to exist and is not therefore eternal, one would to that extent at least have shown the superiority of theism as a rational world view. This higher being is thought to be God, and therefore God is necessary in order to cause the universe.
Rene Descartes asked what happens if everything is doubted - even one's own existence. He thought that the "I" of which each one of us is aware when we think is the one thing of which we can be certain. Hence his famous dictum, "I think, therefore I am." He went on to wonder "...from whom could I ... derive my existence" if there is no God? If I exist then my existence "... requires the same power and act that would be necessary to create it ..." Just as we think and therefore exist, so there must be an ultimate Thinker from whom all existence derives. This "thinking being" is the ultimate cause of all other beings and must therefore possess "the idea and all the perfections I attribute to deity."
The cosmological argument and ontological argument prove God's existence is 'necessary' through many different methods. If a person accepts that God is the ultimate creator and that there can be no one greater it is safe to assume that God is necessary, and the ontological and cosmological arguments set out a logical way of achieving this!