THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

 

Many have tried to prove the existence of God. Perhaps the most provocative of all proofs (equally troubling for both believer and non-believer), is St. Anselm's so-called ontological proof. Some claim Anselm's proof is a mere word game or a play on words. Others praise Anselm for the simplicity of his argument. If you do not experience yourself thinking That can not be right! after reading the argument for the first time, then you need to re-examine the argument. Before we address the proof per se, let us learn about Anselm and what is meant by ontological...

Anselm lived in a time where belief in a deity was often assumed, yet rarely questioned. He, as a person and as a prior of an abbey, had experienced and witnessed the doubt that unquestioned belief can often bring. To assuage this doubt, Anselm endeavored to prove the existence of God in such an irrefutable way that even the most staunch of non-believers would be forced, by reason, to admit the existence of a God.

Exactly how did Anselm attempt to build an "irrefutable" proof? Anselm's proof is known as an ontological proof because it examines reality much like a mathematician might study numbers. If we think about things that exist, what qualities about those things can we know?What can be demonstrated from that which we know? Ontos is a Greek participle, from the verb to be, literally meaning being or entity; logos, as we have all been taught, is the study of something. Literally then, the ontological proof is a study of the nature of being, such that, we can deduce and demonstrate predicates that follow. Note that Anselm does not appeal to experience to assist in the demonstration of his concepts. Much like a proof in geometry, Anselm is working from a set of "givens" to a set of demonstrable concepts.


ANSELM'S ARGUMENT

 

Anselm begins by defining the most central term in his argument - God. Without asserting that God exists, Anselm asks what is it that we mean when we refer to the idea of "God." When we speak of a God, Anselm implies, we are speaking of the most supreme being. That is, let "god" = "something than which nothing greater can be thought." Anselm's definition of God might sound confusing upon first hearing it, but he is simply restating our intuitive understanding of what is meant by the concept "God." Thus, for the purpose of this argument let "God" = "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived."

Within your understanding, then, you possess the concept of God. As a non-believer, you might argue that you have a concept of unicorn (after all, it is the shared concept that allows us to discuss such a thing) but the concept is simply an idea of a thing. After all, we understand what a unicorn is but we do not believe that they exist. Anselm would agree.

Two key points have been made thus far:


1. When we speak of God (whether we are asserting God is or God is not), we are contemplating an entity whom can be defined as "a being which nothing greater can be conceived.";

2. When we speak of God (either as believer or non-believer), we have an intra-mental understanding of that concept, i.e. the idea is within our understanding.


Anselm continues by examining the difference between that which exists in the mind and that which exists both in the mind and outside of the mind as well. What is being asked here is: Is it greater to exist in the mind alone or in the mind and in reality (or outside of the mind)? Anselm asks you to consider the painter, e.g. define which is greater: the reality of a painting as it exists in the mind of an artist, or that same painting existing in the mind of that same artist and as a physical piece of art. Anselm contends that the painting, existing both within the mind of the artist and as a real piece of art, is greater than the mere intra-mental conception of the work. Let me offer a real-world  example: If someone were to offer you a dollar, but you had to choose between the dollar that exists within their mind or the dollar that exists both in their mind and in reality, which dollar would you choose? Are you sure...

At this point, we have a third key point established:

3. It is greater to exist in the mind and in reality, then to exist in the mind alone.


Have you figured out where Anselm is going with this argument?

A. If God is that than greater which cannot be conceived (established in #1 above);
B. And since it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone (established in #3 above);
C. Then God must exist both in the mind (established in #2 above) and in reality;
D. In short, God must be. God is not merely an intra-mental concept but an extra-mental reality as well.

But why? Because if God is truly that than greater which cannot be conceived, it follows that God must exist both in the mind and in reality. If God did not exist in reality as well as our understanding, then we could conceive of a greater being i.e. a being that does exist extramentally and intramentally. But, by definition,  there can be no greater being. Thus, there must be a corresponding extra-mental reality to our intra-mental conception of God. God's existence outside of our understanding is logically necessary.

Sometimes, Anselm's argument is presented as a Reductio Ad Absurdum (RAA). In an RAA, you reduce to absurdity the antithesis of your view. Since the antithesis is absurd, your view must be correct. Anselm's argument would look something like this:

1. Either [God exists] or [God does not exist].

2. Assume [God does not exist] (the antithesis of Anselm's position)

3. If [God does not exist] (but exists only as an intra-mental concept), then that being which nothing greater which can be conceived, is a being which a greater being can be conceived. This is a logical impossibility (remember criterion #3);

4. Therefore, [God does not exist] is incorrect;

5. Therefore [God exists].

Rene Descartes, 1596 - 1650, is also credited with formulating a version of the ontological argument. One possible presentation of the Cartesian argument is as follows:

1. If there is a God it is a perfect being;

2. A perfect being possesses all possible perfections;

3. Existence is a perfection;

4. Therefore, God necessarily possesses the quality of existence. Simply,  God exists.
[GAUNILON's OBJECTION][KANT's OBJECTION][AQUINAS' OBJECTION][RETURN]