However, it seems that the Ontological Argument is not sufficient to the atheist and doesn't convince or convert them to this idea conveying God as a proof. From Anselm's argument one is able to say that if God does exist, he will have necessary existence, but it doesn't actually prove that he does, in fact, exist. Definitions are only able to confirm the characteristics of God if he did exist, yet cannot establish a proven existence. This seems to be the main point and the main flaw of the Ontological Argument, recognised by critics and atheists, that by defining the concept of God, you can be assured and proven of his existence. One can easily form any concept in the mind, such as a "lost island," which was the illustration used by Gaunilo, who criticised Anselm's argument. Would it not be preposterous to then conclude that this island must exist in reality? If one proves the existence of God in this manner, surely the existence of anything imagined, for example, the lost island, can also be proved. As Hume said; "We cannot define something into existence – even if it has all the perfections we can imagine." Therefore, the atheist would most definitely be unsatisfied with this argument.
Another question an atheist would raise is that what does the word “God” actually mean? The definition of God by Anselm is often criticised, as some people may not be able visualise such an infinitely perfect being, as it is a very abstract idea. This criticism concerns the idea of a “greatest being” and raises the question of whether we really have a concept of this. Is this concept meaningful, or can it be compared and likened to the concept of the most perfect building or the greatest number? This thread of criticism would be rejected by believers, as they accept the premises that God is the greatest possible being, in both mind and reality. However, the atheist would question who God actually is if he exists, and therefore would not be convinced by this argument.
The atheist would also argue that one cannot move from a concept to reality, only to a concept of reality, and that The Ontological Argument’s flaw is that it attempts to develop the thought of existence of something, to the actual existence of that something. The atheist would accept that it is reasonable to say that nothing can be thought to be greater than God, yet that if God exists, then God will exist necessarily, but this doesn’t in fact prove that he does exist.
Does existence tell us what an object or being is like? Existence is not a characteristic or real predicate, and one should not view existence as perfection. Existence only states that the object is real and actual in the World. The existence and the realism of something do not really add anything to the concept, and therefore an idea of God is not made greater by adding reality. To imagine something in one’s mind is therefore no different to if that idea was “real.” Existence is not an attribute. For example, “pigs can fly,” and “pigs can walk,” are two statements. Yet, the first statement does not lack an attribute of existence that the second has. This concludes that existence is not a quality which greatens a concept or being. Believers in God however would accept this premise of the argument, as they would relate it directly to God. To say that a tree of money exists is obviously better than to say it doesn’t, and a religious person would accept this view, as they would conclude that God exists as it is better for him to exists than to not. However, this again is something that the atheist would persue, as Anselms’s statement, “it is greater to be a necessary being, (cannot not be,) than a contingent being, (can cease to exist,)” would not convince them when comparing it to different examples. One such example is that, is it better for a serial rapist to exist than not to exist? Believers need then to explain further to Atheists, what is meant by the word “perfection,” and to justify the claim that “existence is perfection.”
I am therefore concluding that the Ontological Argument is most insufficient to convert or persuade the atheist, as there is no actual proof, just ingenious reasoning, which strengthens and rationalises current beliefs in God. However, perhaps Anselm was not intending to convert those who had doubtable faith in God, because as he once said; “I have written the following treatise in the person of one who…seeks to understand what he believes…”
