Explain the Ontological argument from Anslem and Gaunillo's objection 9s?
Katie O'Hara
a. Explain the Ontological argument from Anslem and Gaunillo's
objection9s? (33)
Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are
supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world -- e.g., from reason alone. In
other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary
premises to the conclusion that God exists. Ontology attempts to answer such questions like, "What is
real?" Thus Anselm's ontological proof attempts to answer the question of whether or not God is real
and exists.
The argument was first formualted bt St Anslem of Cantebury in the eleventh century through
"Proslogion" which is a short work that tries to demonstrate both the existence and the nature of God,
and is now the main component of the ontological argument. through the examination of the definition of
God (i.e., God is an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omniscient being) the proof of His existence
follows. Perhaps the following quote from St. Anselm's presentation of the Ontological Argument best
summarizes his position:
... Therefore, if "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" only stood in relation to the
understanding, then "that than which a greater cannot be conceived" would be something than
which a greater can be conceived. But this is certainly impossible.
Therefore, something than which a greater cannot be conceived undoubtedly both stands in
relation to the understanding and exists in reality.
To paraphrase, the argument is this: God is by definition the greatest being possible. A being who fails
to exist in the actual world (while existing in other possible worlds) is less perfect than a being who
exists in all possible worlds. Hence, God exists, necessarily.
Anselm began his dialectic argument (relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions) to define
the God as 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought'. One way to interpret this phrase is
to define "God" as maximal perfection, i.e. the greatest possible being (and this is the definition that
the ontological argument will use here). He stated, the idea of the greatest being cannot be separated
from its existence, because if it lacks existence, a still more perfect being could be thought. Whereas,
the God is necessary to exists, not just in the understanding. In order to support the proof, Anselm
used an example of the Fool. He insisted that the God existed even in a mind of the Fool who said, there
was no God. Anselm stated, because when the Fool hears 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-
thought', he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind. Thus, the God is in his
mind. Gaunilo opposed Anslem arguent and wrote an attack on it "A reply to the forgiving by a certain
writer on behalf on the Fool", which stated that the God could not be conceptualised by human being. He
stated that the fool would make an objection because if the god could exist in his mind, other unreal
thing also could exist. Gaunilo supported his criticism using a parody on Anselm's argument in which he
proves the existence of the most excellent island. However, Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm and a
fellow Catholic, argued that Anselm's ontological argument is invalid, because an argument of the same
form could have true premises and a false conclusion therefore, he introduced perfect island argument
which is perfectly parallel to ontological argument.one must imagine what characteristics would
constitute `the greatest conceivable island.' Anselm would point out that our inability to list all the
properties (and presumably they are infinite) shows that `the greatest conceivable island' is not a
possible object. And the reason why we can use such reasoning with God is that He is a possible object.
Thus, Anselm can conclude that his reasoning applies only to possible objects. Anselm might argue that
Gaunilo's argument is fundamentally different than his argument. For Gaunilo tries to establish the
existence of a kind of thing while Anselm is trying to establish the existence of a particular being . It
seems that we can make sense of what it means for a certain kind of thing to be perfect, while we can't
as easily make sense of what it would mean for a particular being
Anselm recognized that there were some people who doubted the existence of God, however he said that
even an ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Gaunilo's argument is fundamentally different than his argument. For Gaunilo tries to establish the
existence of a kind of thing while Anselm is trying to establish the existence of a particular being . It
seems that we can make sense of what it means for a certain kind of thing to be perfect, while we can't
as easily make sense of what it would mean for a particular being
Anselm recognized that there were some people who doubted the existence of God, however he said that
even an atheis must have a definition of God to dismiss his existence. An athesis could have a concept
of unicorn (after all, it is the shared concept that allows us to discuss such a thing) but the concept is
simply an idea of a thing. After all, we understand what a unicorn is but we do not believe that they
exist. Therefore when we are speaking of God we have an undestanding of what God is, this means that
the idea is implict in our understanding.
There is not a doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived. Therfore it
exists both in the understanding and in reality. Anselm examinies the difference between that which
exists in the mind and that which exists both in the mind and outside of the mind as well. What is being
asked here is: Is it greater to exist in the mind alone or in the mind and in reality (or outside of the
mind)? Anselm asks you to consider the painter, e.g. define which is greater: the reality of a painting as
it exists in the mind of an artist, or that same painting existing in the mind of that same artist and as
a physical piece of art. Anselm contends that the painting, existing both within the mind of the artist
and as a real piece of art, is greater than the mere mental conception of the work. Take a modern
example: If someone were to offer you a dollar, but you had to choose between the dollar that exists
within their mind or the dollar that exists both in their mind and in reality, which dollar would you
choose? Therefore it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind. If God is truly that than greater
which cannot be conceived, it follows that God must exist both in the mind and in reality. If God did not
exist in reality as well as our understanding, then we could conceive of a greater being i.e. a being that
does exist in our minds and in reality. Yet according to Anslem's definition, there can be no greater
being "nothing greater can be concieved". Thus, there must be a corresponding mental reality to our
mental conception of God. God's existence outside of our understanding is logically necessary, and
prevents the argument from becoming contradictory. Gaunilo's argumentative criticism claims that in
the dual existence, with understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist. For if it does not
exist, any lord who really exists will be more excellent than God. If man should try to prove to that his
existence should no longer be doubted and me by such reasoning that God exists, for he ought to show
first that the hypothetical excellence of God exists as a real and indubitable being or spirit, or one
whose existence is uncertain in our understanding.
God has many attributes which describe him. Among these being: self-existent, a necessary being,
omnipotent, omniscient, completely just, and timelessly eternal however, the most important attributes
is the fact that he is self-existent. In essence, that means that God depends on nothing else for his
existence, he is uncaused. Therefore, his existence is timelessly eternal. This means that God cannot
stop existing. On the other hand, contingent beings (such as ourselves) depend on something else for
their existence. Contingent beings therefore can begin to be or cease to be at anytime. They can, unlike
God, be here today and gone tomorrow. Anselm uses the definition of God, to prove God's existence.
Now, let's look at the premises;
. God is the Greatest concievable being
2. God exists or doesn't exist
3. Assume God doesn't exist
4. If God does not exist then the Greatest concievable being does not exist
5. You can conceive of existence Greatest concievable being
6. But an exiting Greatest concievable being is greater than a non-existing Greatest concievable being
7. But nothing can be greater than the Greatest concievable being
Anselm believes that God is the greatest being we can possibly think of. He does this by first trying to
prove the opposite of what he really wants to prove. For example, in premise three lets suppose God
does not exist in reality. Now, we could think of something greater, a being that has all the same
virtuous characteristics as we think God has, but also being able to exist in reality. He then tries to
prove that this supposition leads to a conclusion, which cannot possibly be true. Then the original God
would not be the greatest thinkable being, this new something else, that actually exists would be. This
new God who actually exists would then be able to be seen, heard and touched by the individuals who
believe he exists as the greatest thinkable being. Nevertheless, it is obviously impossible that the
greatest being we can think of should not be the greatest being we could think. Therefore, the
conclusion that God does not exist must be false. Anselm then believes that the opposite of this
supposition must be true therefore, God exists. A perfect God must exist in reality. Otherwise, God
would not be totally perfect. Existence is perfection. " For it is one thing for a thing to stand in
relation to our understanding; it is another thing for us to understand that it really exists."
Anselm's ontological argument attempts to prove that God exists, but does so a priori and not from a
premise which can be demonstrated apaprt from faith. His fundamental premise is that God's nature is
such that nothing greater that God can even be conceived. The proof extends from this assumption,
stating that God exists not only in the mind, but also in reality, due to the very nature of "Godness."
Also, God cannot be understood as not existing, since the existence of God is necessary. That this is
not a proof of God's existence does not invalidate Anselm for a faith approach to an understanding of
God, but it does leave the field open for further attempts to prove the existence of the Divine through
rational means.
b.) The Ontological argument can never overcome Kant's objections thst
existence is not a prediate? (17)
Immaunel Kant was a nineeth century philosopher who critised the ontological argument through the
"Critque of Pure reason" (1781). Kant main objection to the ontological argument is the way which
existence is treated as a predicate. Kant saw Anselms argument as merely a word game, playing on words
and not reality. In this sense, Kant sees the Ontological argument as an exercise in verbal analysis, the
means where anyone can anaylse the meaning of a word or concept, and draw a logical explanation from
it. Therefore, Anselms words necessary existence are logical part of a defined concept of God but they
do not reveal whether God exists in reality. Kants second criticism outlines that an idea of something
does not automatically make it exist in reality. Its actual existence is something additional to the idea
of a thing. Kant referred to this concept where existence is not a predicate; that is it is not a defining
quality of a thing like size, colour, shape and so on.
There are two types of judgment: analytical and synthetic. The example that Kant used for an analytical
judgment was "a triangle has three angles". This is obviously true, because by definition a triangle must
have three sides - all that one would need is the knowledge of the definition of triangle in order to see
that the predicate (three angles) is contained in the subject (triangle). The ontological argument claims
to be analytical in that it proves the existence of God because existence is contained in the definition
of the word God. An analytical judgment, like the one given above, does not imply necessity - the words
"if" and "then" are implied. The statement could also be read: "If there are triangles, then they have
three angles" and could be negated without contradiction "If there are no triangles, then they do not
have three angles". However, it is claimed that the ontological argument is the single exception to this
rule. If existence is in the definition of the word "God" then: "If there is no God, then no God exists"
is a contradiction and would be like saying: "If there are no triangles, then the concept of a triangle
does not contain three angles". As soon as a person has admitted that he/she has a concept of "God", by
this argument, then that person has also admitted God's existence (in the same way that admitting you
have the concept of a triangle is, is to admit that a triangle has three angles).
Is it possible that existence can be a predicate? In other words, can a thing by definition exist? It
appears that existence may be a predicate since existence, like an analytic predicate, does not seem to
add to the subject. Consider the judgment "Triangles are three-sided polygons and exist." A triangle in
existence maintains the same predicates it does in the understanding -- meaning, a triangle in existence
is still three-sided. Here's where Anselm goes wrong. Existence appears not to add to the subject
itself, but it does add to one's concept of the subject. According to Anselm, God's existence can be
proven from the understanding of the concept of God alone. Kant thinks not. As Kant puts it "the real
object...is not analytically contained in my conception, but [notice, it] forms a synthetical addition to
my conception (which is a determination of my mental state)." True, a hundred dollars in my hand does
not become a hundred and more dollars upon my affirming that it exists. But a hundred dollars in my
hand does add to my conception of it (namely my affirmation that it exists, and I can now spend it
rather than imagine spending it). Kant's point is that existence does add to a subject. What does it
add? It adds an ability to be perceived, or experienced, as objects in the world are perceived, or
experienced. It is this addition that makes an existential judgment a synthetic judgment, and a
synthetic judgment can only be known to be true or false through experience. Therefore, all existential
judgments must be synthetic judgments. Furthermore, existence cannot be a predicate
Kant argued that the word 'exist' is not a reala predicate for example in the sentence "Thomas is the
teacher", the word "is" is not the predicate, but it is the word that implies existence. Therefore, the
sentence "God is" does not contain a predicate. A predicate is a word that adds a quality to the concept
of the thing it is applied to - existence is not a quality. Anslem implies that existence is a predicate
and therefore if Kant's critisism is true then the argument becomes invalid, Kant had deflated and
destroyed the whole meaning of the argument.
Kant argues that when one ascribed a quality, characteristic or predicate of anything, one asserts or
presupposes that things exist and then ascribe the predicate to it. If this objection is correct, then
when we assert that an object, being or thing exists we would be presupposing that it exists and then
going on to predicate the exsitence from that presupposition, for example the simple statement "Cats
exist" in asserting this statement we would be presupposing that cats exist and then going on to make a
predicate existence from them. In other words, if one imagines a cat and do not tell anyone whether
this cat has any particular characteristics or qualities, all one has is the abstract notion of a four
legged animal within a certain general size and shape. Now imagine that cat existing. Imaging that a cat
exists, at first it would be a rather odd idea as when one thinks of a cat, you tend to imagine specific
qualities or characteristics. Now imagine a cat with all of those charcateristics and qualities. The
basic point that Kant is making is that existence is not a quality that adds to a conception of an obejct,
image or thing, because any quality that an actually existing thing has we can imagine a thing without
actually existing. So the statement "Cats exist" does not add anything to the list of qualities one
imagines a cat to have, rather we are saying that the concept of the cat applies to a modern day and
real world. Therefore existence is not like a real predicate (characteristic/quality) but is just a
concept in the mind but actually exist in reality.
The anology of the car attempts to try and simply Kant's objections to the ontological argument. 'What
would be an ideal car?' For most civilians a 'perfect car' would probably include power steering, air
conditioning, electric windows etc. One could take the power steering, air conditioning and electric
windows away from the car and it would still exist. However if you take the existence of the car away,
the car disappears, existence is what upon what all other qualities depend. Existence cannot simply be
attached as a quality like every other quality. It does not tell us the characteristic of an object but it
is just a concept in the mind which has potential or could exist in reality. The real contains no more
than the mere possible, so a concept cannot be made greater by adding reality.
As a medevial philospher Anslem never address the question 'What if God does not exist?' he merely
presumes that there is one and attempts to prove his existence. Therefore the ontological argument's
definitions of God can only tell what God would be like if he existed, it cannot prove the existence of
God like other arguments such as the cosmological argument do. The ontological argument takes a
concept of the imagination and attempts to transpose it into reality. Hence Mackie statement; 'there
is no contradiction in denying the reality of a conceptual being who has necessary existence.'
He asserts that for God to be the greatest conceivable, as well as His other properties (omnipotence,
omniscience, omnipresence, etc), He must also have the property of existence, otherwise He would not
be the greatest conceivable. Kant's point is that existence cannot be a quality in the way other
qualities are. A priori analytic judgments about God can be made (such as "God is omnipotent, etc"), but
existence cannot be one of them since, as Kant has shown, judgments of existence are synthetic. And
synthetic judgments can only be true or false through experience.
Kant main objection is that existence is not as prediate like Anslem and may other theologians and
philosophers suggested through the ontological argument. As Kant has shown, judgments of existence
are synthetic. Since judgments of existence are synthetic, one cannot prove God's existence
analytically as Anselm would have a fool think. Kant successfully diminshes the whole argument, and
although the ontological argument may raise may unanswered questions and may cause problems for many
people because of the methods and types of truth it uses it has still stood the test of time. No matter
what criticisms are put against it, new scientific evidence or a new image of God cannot disprove it.
The argument may not be successful in turning millions of people into devoted follows of the one God,
but in the philosophy of religion it is one of the strongest arguments, if not the strongest, for the
existence of God, if one believes in God.
