Also, we must accept his existence because if God is the greatest that we can conceive in the mind then he must exist in reality because if he did not than a greater being can be thought of in the mind that also exists in reality. Therefore God must exist both in the mind and reality.
Anselm supports his argument by saying that when ‘a fool hears what I am saying... he understands what he hears … even if he doesn’t understand that it exists’. In other words for a person to deny God he must understand the concept of God. If a fool understands God to be ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ than it is unimaginable to think of God as not existing. It is logically necessary for Gods’ existence.
Anselm’s argument also attempts to show God’s existence as necessary. He claimed that if God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’, it is better to be necessary than contingent. When he suggests this he means to say that there is no possibility of God not existing. He stated that there are necessary beings which are things that cannot not exist for example God and contingent beings things that may exist but whose existence is not needed for example an island and humans. Therefore if God’s existence is a logical necessity than it is impossible to believe that God does not exist as it will be contradictory.
Descartes supports Anselm as he believes that existence was a necessary predicate of God as it is illogical to say that God does not exist when it is believed that he contains every possible perfection. He acknowledged that it was impossible to have a God without recognising his existence in the same way it was impossible to imagine a triangle without its three sides and angles.
To conclude, Anselm’s ontological argument proves that God exists, as you accept that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ therefore it is inconceivable that God cannot exist and that it is logically necessary for his existence.
B) Anselm’s Ontological Argument Is Wrong. Discuss.
At the time when Anselm had proposed the argument everybody believed in a God and there were not many atheists around.
The Ontological Argument demands that we believe the definition of God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. At that time no one disagreed with this as they all believed in a God and understood that the conclusion was analytic (a-priori) and deductive. It was seen as logically necessary as the conclusion was contained within the premises; therefore the conclusion had to be absolute.
However, now Anselm’s Ontological argument is regarded as more of an inductive argument than deductive because deductive proofs require us to accept that words and definitions have fixed meanings also that there can not be any alternative conclusions. Nowadays not everyone accepts the tautology of God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. They believe the argument to be a reasonable or strong inductive proof.
Overall, it is considered a weak argument because it depends on whether we accept the premises to be analytically true and whether it leads to an apparent logically necessary conclusion.
Kant argues that Descartes is wrong in stating that existence was a necessary predicate of God because existence is not a predicate. It is not a quality but a way of saying that there is the thing itself with all the qualities given.
For Kant statements about existence are synthetic and can only be proved true or false by experiences of this world. They statements are a-prosterori. He states that the three sides and angles are necessary because they are a part of a triangles definition, but in its definition it does nit state anything about a triangles existence.
In the same way he argues that if you believe there is a God and that he is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’ than it is logical to accept that God exists except you do not have to accept that there is a God. In other words just because you have a concept of something does not mean you have to accept that it exists. Except Anselm responds by saying that you can either have a triangle or not but since God is necessary you simply cannot have no God.
Also, Gaunilo claims that if Anselm’s argument was true than his idea of a perfect island for example an island with trees, a waterfall, elves and golden grass must have to exist; except this is not necessarily true as there in no perfect island like he suggests in reality. Anselm rejects this as he believes an island is contingent and doesn’t need to exist but God is necessary and is unique as it can not be thought of as non existent.
On the whole, Anselm’s ontological argument is considered to be wrong because he believes that it is a deductive proof which is analytic and a-priori when actually it is inductive as not everyone believes in God or the fact that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. For it to be deductive you should be unable to dispute the conclusion drawn from the premises, however since Kant and Gaunilo have challenged Anselm’s argument from which the conclusion can be doubted then it is wrong.
