It is largely irrelevant that Anslem uses this argument to describe the word God. The argument would still work to prove ‘x’ where x is the most perfect being imaginable.
For Anselm there is no doubt that existence makes a thing more perfect so to say that the most perfect thing must have existence as one of its characteristics is clearly logical. Hence Anselm's agreement with the Psalmist who says, ‘only the fool says in his heart there is no God’.
Descartes took this argument a little further. He declared that to say that God does not exist is a logical contradiction. Descartes states that as he has a concept of the most perfect being in his mind, the most perfect being must exist in reality as well. He argues that a he may have the image of a painting in his mind; however it is not as great as the painting when it has been painted. Existence, according to Descartes, is as much a characteristic of God as 180 degrees is a characteristic of a triangle.
Just as it is logically impossible to say, ‘that triangle does not have 180 degrees’, it is also logically impossible to say, ‘God does not exist’. Saying that God does not exist is, according to Descartes, saying, ‘that creature with existence does not exist.’ This is, by definition, an untrue statement, therefore God must, by definition exist.
Anselm strengthened his argument in response to a criticism by one of his contemporaries. The French monk Gaunilon (who was himself a believer in God) argued that Anselm’s argument was ridiculous. He said that if he were to apply the same logic to other things he could prove that the most perfect ‘anything’ exists. The example he used was that of an island. The most perfect island must exist by definition because otherwise there could be more Perfect Island, i.e. one that exists in reality.
Anslem responded to this criticism by stating that unlike an island it is only God who must have existence as part of his definition. An island is defined as land surrounded by water, it does not have to have existence as a characteristic. God, however, is a necessary being and therefore existence is part of his definition.
With and argument based entirely on analytical reasoning, the definition of words and the use of language, Anselm and Descartes felt that they had produced a proof for God’s existence.
b) Anslem’s argument appears to be convincing on an analytical level, however, its weakness lies in the assumption that the word, ‘existence’ is a predicate that can add more information to any noun. There is also a basic problem in taking an argument based purely on analytical logic and attempting to apply it’s conclusions to the real observable world.
Kant observed that the word ‘exists’ appears to be a predicate at first glance which adds something to a subject. Just as, if I tell you that the cow is red I have added more information about the cow. This is a significant error. The word ‘exists’ does not add anything to a subject. A £100 and a £100 that exists are made up of the same number of pounds. If one were to consider a cow and then a cow that exists, we are thinking of the same thing. The word ‘exists’ tells us more not of the subject but of the state of the universe.
If I were to say, ‘the unicorn exists’ I would not be changing your concept of unicorns; I would be informing you of the state of the world. That is it contains things like horses with big spikes sticking out of the foreheads and with some magical powers.
If, as Kant states, the word ‘exist’ does not add anything to a subject, then to say that the greatest being imaginable must have existence is indeed a fallacy based on the incorrect assumption that existence is a predicate which makes a thing better or greater.
Kant uses Descartes own example of a triangle. He states that just as if there is a triangle then it must have 180 degrees, so also, if there is a God he must have the characteristic of existence. In other words, ‘if God exists then he exists’.
A second objection to the ontological argument was raised by David Hume. It is not possible to begin and argument based upon mere logic, which is present only in the mind and reach a conclusion which is based entirely in the observable universe. We, as human beings simply do not work this way. We base our lives and our conclusions on those things which we can observe, not those things which we can rationally prove; these things stay in our minds only and have no real impact on our real worlds.
Although the ontological argument is based on some valid reasoning, it is essentially flawed and unconvincing. It assumes to know the nature of an unknowable God. It presumes that the characteristic of existence adds to the perfection of a thing. It starts with analytical logical and reaches a fallacious conclusion about the synthetic world.
