We are dependent on something else for existence, for example I am dependent on the egg and sperm, a piece of toast is dependent on a toaster and somebody putting a piece of bread in the toaster. However, in the second half of his argument Anselm insisted that God’s existence is totally independent and necessary. God could not be conceived not to exist for a being that can be though not to exist is not as great as one that cannot be thought not to exist, existence is therefore necessary to the idea of God. This argument is based on God’s aseity, they define the nature of God in contrast to every other being in existence which is created and contingent; that is dependent on something else for existence e.g. the Big Bang is a contingent happening. God cannot be thought of as not existing, that being than which nothing greater can be conceived exists as truly that it cannot be thought of as none existent.
How can you go from the idea of something, to instituting its existence? This is how Gaunilo approached Anselm’s argument. Gaunilo used an analogy of the imaginary island, perfect in everyway and therefore the greatest that could be imagined and said that it did not follow from this that (a) it actually existed just because it was possible in mind or (b) that the idea was any less perfect because it did not exist in reality. We are able to describe fictitious things without them actually existing and yet other people can understand that they are fictitious.
However, Anselm had an answer to this; the island (perfect in every way) has a beginning and an end and is composed of parts, but God is unique. Anselm argued that Gaunilo’s rejection of his argument was invaluable, it could not be applied to God because God is a unique being.
Descartes reinforced the argument later on in his Meditations. In Descartes argument he made existence one of the predicates. A predicate is one of the characteristics in which feature on the object in question. For example, one person’s predicates of God could be loving, caring, humane, optimistic etc but existence would always be a predicate of God. Descartes used an example of a triangle saying that the three angles of a triangle adding up to 180degrees make up the essence of a triangle, it would not be a triangle if it’s three angles did not add up to 180. Similarly, God could not be thought of as God without being thought of as existing, existence is necessary to the idea and concept of God.
David Hume rejected this argument, he believed whatever can be thought of as existing can also be thought of as not existing, God may or may not exist but this cannot be determined by looking at the word God, he believed “God exists” is a synthetic statement. You cannot decide on the truth of X by analysing X, which is what the Ontological argument tries to do.
Kant also discarded the argument similarly to Hume, he insisted that existence is not a predicate, you cannot make a list of things and then add existence to it and it would exist. For example, the perfect husband, you cannot make a list of predicates for the perfect husband and then add exist to it and then suddenly it would exist and you could go out looking for him knowing that he exists. As nice as it would be, it’s impossible. When we have a specification of anything we have to go outside the specification to determine whether or not it exists. The actual existence is something additional to the idea and concepts of a thing.
Thomas Aquinas made further criticisms. He said that “God exists” is a synthetic statement, we find out by experiences in the world around us and he maintained that people had very different ideas and views about God, both factors which made it impossible to arrive at God’s existence simply my analysing the definition of God.
Despite this argument being probably the oldest known, there are contemporary interpretations, for example Norman Malcolm has been a modern advocate. The first part of Anselm’s argument is dismissed on the basis that existence is a completely different predicate to those that make the characteristics of perfection (Kant’s point) but he relents on the second half of the argument, God’s aseity. Once you have understood what “God” means, then God exists for you. The word God has meaning and value within the form of the life of the religious believer.
- If God exists, his existence is necessary
- If God does not exist, his existence is impossible
- Either God exists or does not exist
- God’s existence is not possible
- Therefore, God’s existence is necessary
From 1, Malcolm was implying that the concept of God cannot be a chance product. If the rest of the argument is right then God exists. Once one possesses the possibility of God then it is assumed that one is agreeing that God is necessary. Once one has a full understanding of God then God can exist. However, if this argument is true it destroys the point of religious faith, the relationship people have with God would be worthless. All the things that matter to a Christian, faith, prayer and trust are all elements in believing in God which are worth something to a Christian, but people would have no choice in believing in God, they will have to believe in God. Christians argue that God's existence should never be proven.
In conclusion I believe this argument is irrelevant, I think God’s existence should be intrinsic nothing can prove it apart from one’s personal experiences and trust in God’s power to help you through hard times. It would be nice if there was an all loving God, but how can you think that when such things as cancer and death and war are present wherever you go. If there is a God, where does God come from? God cannot have created himself before he had a ‘self’ to create with.
