At the time of Anselm, the church had authority over people; there was no argument from Darwin etc. The ontological argument tries to make faith compatible with Logic and make belief logical. Therefore even non-believers of God have to accept this definition, as there is still no concept of a being greater than God, and he transcends their understanding.
Anselm’s idea of contingency and necessity states that most things in this World are contingent; they depend on other things for their existence. As God is the idea that nothing greater can be thought of, “he” does not just exist, but is necessary, and does not require anything else to help bring his existence about, or depend on anything else to survive. Anselm argues that for God to be necessary, there is no possibility of him not existing, and there is no alternative to his idea and definition of God. This idea of necessity explores that God is eternal and transcends our understanding, being outside of space and time, however he can create and operate within his creation, our universe. Anselm claims that if God did not exist in this way, then we would not exist in the same way.
Guanilo of Marmoutier (or on behalf of the fool) opposes Anselm’s ideas. He does not agree with the statement “that by which nothing greater can be conceived”, and thinks that we can imagine an Island which is greater than another that can be conceived. We can think of another Island, but just because we can define it, it doesn’t mean it exists. It does not exist, but is a part of our imagination, like Anselm’s idea of the ideal partner.
Despite this, Guanilo’s criticism is often questioned, Anselm states the idea that nothing greater can be conceived than God. As Guanilo’s example of an island, it has no intrinsic maximum, meaning it can always be bettered; therefore it doesn’t successfully counteract Anselm’s argument. Also, the simple idea that Guanilo uses Anselm’s idea of definition on a parallel with existence and furthers it by use of an object we know exists, even if not in its “perfect” form, does not criticise Anselm effectively.
The Ontological Argument can never overcome Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate (17)
A criticism of the Ontological argument states that Kant’s idea of existence is one that suggests it is not a predicate, or characteristic of God.
The ideas for this idea begin with the idea that existence is not a predicate of a subject (in this case God) it is simply the “state” of the object/subject. It argues that it is not a real quality, just an assumption. If you say something exists, it does not tell us anything about something else. A predicate must be able to give us information about the subject.
Secondly, from Kant’s point of view, he simply states that the Ontological argument does not prove God exists, it assumes that God exists.
Another idea is that God’s existence is just an invention of the human mind, and not something that evidence can explain. It is possible to talk about or think about God and his existence; however it is not possible to see or touch God.
There are counter arguments for these ideas however, and state that just because you cannot touch the idea of “existence”, it does not mean it is not a reality.
Secondly is the idea that if you believe in something existing, “having existence”, or you think it exists, then it does indeed exist.
Thirdly, the idea has been created that the Ontological argument appears unsteady, however as it is difficult to pinpoint why exactly it is shaky, it can be argued that it is in fact quite a strong argument.
Lastly, Kant’s idea further states that the only way we can gain knowledge of the World is through experience, not following the A Priori ideas of the Ontological argument.
