Thirdly, the argument lies on the premise of a ‘perfect’ God. However, Aquinas objected that not everyone has the same definition of God. There can be no ‘perfect’ God, because it is impossible to understand what truly perfect is – different people have different concepts of God. The extent of ‘perfection’ is infinitive – for example, what makes a ‘perfect’ basketball player? How many baskets would he have to shoot? What height would he have to be? Also, the definition of the word ‘great’ can be challenged. Anselm states that god is the ‘greatest’ being that can be conceived – but does great mean more perfect? Therefore, the argument cannot work since there is no agreed definition. Instead, Aquinas thought the only way to prove God’s existence was through a posteriori knowledge, because any argument for the existence of God has to be based on the evidence God leaves us in the world. Aquinas said that even if the argument succeeded to prove God’s existence, it would not prove the nature of God – is he omnipotent, omni-benevolent and omniscient? Also, God’s existence cannot be proven with our logic; his logic is superior to ours, and it is absurd to try and explain him using a different set of logic.
Also, the argument assumes that existence in reality and in the mind is greater than existence in the mind alone. This might not necessarily be the case. Immanuel Kant objected that existence itself was not an attribute to a concept, such as temperature, or colour. Existence cannot alter the concept of an essence; and so the existence of God cannot add to the concept of God. Suppose we were given two separate statements – “Triangles exist”, and “Triangles have three sides”. The first one tells us nothing about triangles other than the fact that it exists; but the latter is a predicate – it tells us a lot more about triangles. Kant said that existence could not be associated with the definition of something. For example, if the definition of the word ‘Kriangle’ is ‘a triangle that exists’, then our only option would be to come to the conclusion that a kriangle (and thus, a triangle) exists. This is what the definition tells us. However, using this method we could prove the existence of anything, simply by defining something through its existence. From this we can conclude that ‘existence’ cannot properly function in a definition; therefore the existence or non-existence of God should not have an effect on his definition - and the argument fails.
The argument can also be challenged from another angle. The definition of God, as given by Anselm, is ‘the greatest thing that can be conceived’. However, even this can be doubted – for can it not be said that two gods would be greater than one god? But this would mean that God is not the greatest conceivable thing. This could be put in the following form:
- God is the greatest conceivable thing
- Two Gods are greater than one God
- 1 and 2 contradict each other
If premise 2 is true, then we must agree that premise 1 is false. If the greatest conceivable thing is not God, then the argument would still go on indefinitely. The whole argument would then break down, because the definition of God being ‘the greatest conceivable thing’ has no meaning to it, and this is the basis upon which the whole argument is built.
Gaunilo also puts forward his ‘Perfect Island Argument’ to disprove Anselm’s ontological argument. Imagine the perfect island where all the conditions are perfect – the sand, the weather, the waves. Well, using the logic Anselm employs in the ontological argument, this island would exist, because it is more perfect to exist in reality than only in our understanding. However, we know that this perfect island does not exist, and therefore the logic fails to prove God’s argument. We cannot simply jump from the possibility of this island’s existence to its actual existence just by insisting existence would make the island more ‘perfect’.
To conclude why I don’t think the ontological argument successfully proves the existence of God, I have summed up my main points:
- The ontological argument strives to prove a synthetic statement as an analytic statement.
- Anselm jumps from the possibility of God’s existence straight into the actuality of his existence; he confuses blibs with blobs (Stephen Law’s figure of speech).
- There is no single definition of God that can be agreed upon; his perfection can have different meanings to different people. How can his existence be derived from his definition if the definition itself hasn’t been fully established?
- The whole ontological argument uses human logic to infer the existence of a higher being; but God is superior to us – our logic is not fit to explain his existence.
-
Existence is not a predicate; it does not add anything to the concept of an essence – we cannot say something is ‘greater’ just because it exists.
- Is God the greatest thing that can be conceived? Surely he cannot be greater than two Gods, but this would contradict his perfection. The definition of God being the greatest conceivable thing is therefore meaningless.
- Gaunilo’s perfect island argument: anything can be proven to exist using Anselm’s logic, including the perfect island. But it does not, so Anselm’s logic fails.
The ontological argument put forward by Anselm is greatly flawed, proven by the arguments against it I have presented in the essay. Though it makes a brave attempt at proving God’s existence through the simplicity of his definition alone, there are some obvious faults that have been attacked by various other philosophers. Anselm fails to prove the existence of God through his ontological argument.
