Throughout the course of human history, one of the most compelling questions that is
pursued was: Does God exist? which is genuine, since our way of living, morals and traditions
are based on the answer of this question. This gave rise to countless theologians who have tried
to come with sound and rational arguments to affirm the existence of God, through the use of
logic and reason. In light of this, one of the most prominent Christian thinkers, Anselm, founded
the ontological argument. My primary objective in this essay is to analyze and critically evaluate
the arguments pros and cons. After that I will refute a widespread and commonly raised
objection against this argument. Finally, I will wrap up in concluding that this argument is not a
conclusive one, (it doesnt assert solely the existence of God) although providing a very intuitive
and rational defense.
Anselms formulation of the ontological argument runs as follows:
1. Every person has the notion of a maximal being (greatest possible being)
2. One of the traits of greatness is existence in reality and not only in the head
3. If God only exists in the head as an idea, then the maximally great being which none
greater can be thought of is a being which a greater can be thought of
4. God cant exist only in the understanding
When I say the greatest possible being, I tend to imagine a sublime, transcendental, non-
physical being; since its rational to assume that physical objects cant have an intrinsic maximal
greatness embedded in them, in turn physical objects are not suitable candidates for the position
of the greatest possible being. For example, assume we want to perceive of the greatest
cocktail drink, so what makes it the greatest? Personally I like adding more avocados to the
drink, thus the only properties we can think of are intrinsic with no maximum since I can always
Commented [1]: There is a tense disagreement.
Better to say, one of the most compelling questions pursued was
or one of the most compelling questions mankind pursued is etc
etc
Commented [2]: Separate which is genuine and the
sentence that follows it. i.e. Does God Exist? which is a genuine
question; since our etc etc.
Or remove which is genuine and continue just with because our
way of living
Commented [3]: Using/relying exclusively on etc
Commented [4]: St. Anselm (wlw alloush?) hahha
Commented [5]: Was the original founder of
Commented [6]: Pros and cons doesnt fit in this context.
Better to say the arguments strengths and shortcomings or
anything like that
Commented [7]: Moreover/furthermore etc
Commented [8]: Too many repetition of ideas:
Try Finally, I will demonstrate that the ontological argument is not
conclusive; in other words, the argument doesnt stand by itself/(or
you can say) required supplementary arguments etc etc
Commented [9]: Assume your audience isnt aware of what
exactly this means. A footnote will be useful to explain what you
mean by this
Commented [10]: Existence in reality is greater than
existence in the mind alone.
Commented [11]: I think its better to split this premise. It is
not very clear. For example:
3. Assume God (MGB) existed only in the mind and not in reality.
4. It is possible for God to exist in reality.
5. If God exists only in the mind but not in reality, then it means
that it could be possible for God to existence in reality and conceive
of something greater than a being where nothing greater can be
conceived of. (which is a contradiction)
6. Therefore MGB exists in the mind and reality.
(feel free to edit this, but this is the general guideline.)
Commented [12]: Explain in footnote. Its better
Commented [13]: Sentence too long.
Try to start off by what you think is a MGB. And then list some
other possibilities separately. For example the first is physical
objects (explain why they are not qualified and second abstract
objects (again explain why they are not good candidates. (you have
written all this, just split them logically)
Commented [14]: More specifically, What properties make it
great/greatest?
add more and more avocados! Yet this is nonsensical. Now some may say that numbers (non-
physical entities) can have an intrinsic maximum, however its not rational to attribute
maximally great qualities to an abstract object (i.e. number), such as omniscience and
omnipotence. So we can conclude that the only appropriate candidate for greatest possible being
is a transcendental non-physical being.
Upon reflection, a controversy that arises is that of God being an actual possible being.
What are his characteristics? This in turn will give rise to contradictions, such as if he is
omniscient and omnipotent will he be able to make a rock he cant carry? Since if he can make
one then hes not omnipotent and if he cant hes not omniscient. However, a fundamental
mistake done in asking such a question is that we assume that God is like humans and he can
carry stuff. For us to carry something we have to overcome the gravitational force which is an
intrinsic property between Earth and the object we want to carry, dependent on the mass of the
object and Earth1. Whereas for God just making the gravity zero will allow him to carry
anything, (Gravity zero as in space where all massive stars are floating). This question doesnt
differentiate between mass and weight (which is the fundamental mistake), an object which has
the same mass as the biggest star in the universe can be lifted by a baby in a zero gravity area! So
disregarding the mass of the biggest possible rock if we put it in a zero gravity area its as light as
a feather.
Moreover, another question people may ask is: Can God fit the whole universe in an egg
without changing the size of the egg? The same kind of contradiction is shown here too,
however, Imam Ali refuted this by a simple explanation: if you can see the whole universe
G(m1m2)
1
= 2
Gravitational force equation
Commented [15]: Try to explain why you talked about
adding more avocados i.e. to make it more great etc..
And then as you said explain why that doesnt count as intrinsic
greatness.
Commented [16]: I think its better to say logically possible
being
Because later you try to list the alleged contradictions of God.
Commented [17]: I think you merged two different attributes.
The rock analogy is for Gods omnipotence only, not for his
omniscience.
The paradox is, Can God create a stone/rock so heavy that even he
cannot lift it?
Whether you answer yes or no, it would mean that God is not
omnipotent.
Commented [18]: TBH, this is a new response. I have never
seen it before.
You have more or less argued scientifically but I would prefer a
philosophical argument since its a philosophy paper.
The philosophical response is this.
The paradox itself is logically absurd and incoherent because the
wording itself already restricts Gods power and assumes his non-
omnipotence.
In other words, the paradox is basically saying, Can God do
something which he cant? so the paradox is already assuming
what it wants to prove. This is a big fallacy.
Commented [19]: I like the response you give later. But its
more poetic I guess.
The simple response is this.
The question itself is logically impossible (like making a square
circle)
And the definition of omnipotence does NOT include logical
impossibilities like making a married bachelor.
through your eyes, which are even smaller than an egg, then God has already done even more

than question asks for! A third question is can God kill himself? If we reflect a bit, we find that

this is also fundamentally wrong. If a human dies we assume that his soul will go to another

place, so killing ourselves doesnt actually mean we get abolished from the surface of the Earth

we only go to another place2, its just physical death, so if God kills himself he wont die since

death is a word used to describe physical death and not death of the soul. Thus getting killed is

also a human trait that we are attributing wrongly to God.
Therefore, a lot of questions that try to show inconsistency in God tend to overlook some
fundamental law or rule of humanity and science. So we have ruled out the possibility that a
greatest possible being is impossible, so its possible that it exists, which is enough make the
Commented [20]: To talk about souls (and of course this is
related a lot to religion) is not a strong point to make especially in a
philosophical paper. It is a highly controversial topic.
A simpler response:
One of Gods attributes is aseity (God exists eternally in and of
himself
So for God to kill himself (whatever that mean :p) that would
violate Gods attributes, which is again NOT included in the
definition of omnipotence.

ontological argument work. Now another question raised is: do we evidence that a greatest

possible being is actually possible? In other words is there a unique referent or doesnt it refer to

anything?

One of the answers lays in examining the argument from contingency. It argues that

anything that exists must have an explanation either by its own existence or by an external cause.

So when we look at the universe (which exists) we find it is contingent (it could have not been

there). So what is the best explanation for its existence (keeping in mind it is contingent)? We

can assume that the best explanation is that an external source was the creator3. This external

source must be necessary and has sublime intellect and power: which brings us back to the

greatest possible being; since necessary existence is a perfect making quality then it should be

ascribed to the greatest possible being.

2
According to religions that do assume the soul goes to another place and is not destroyed completely
3
Assuming the principle of sufficient reason is abided by here
 Moving on to a very common objection to this argument, which goes as follows: Commented [21]: Another
Commented [22]: Reads as follows
Doesnt the ontological argument beg the question to begin with? (Anselm p.82). This

objection targets the first premise namely: persons have the idea of a greatest possible being

which automatically assumes the existence of a great being. Lets first define beg the question, Commented [23]: Explain why this is the case in the
footnotes.

to put it simply: when an objection to the conclusion is also an objection to one of the premises Commented [24]: Lets first define when an argument begs
the question
Commented [25]: Start with a new sentence. Simply
which is not supported by evidence, thus when looking at it in this sense we see that the put.etc
Commented [26]: An argument is said to beg the question
conclusion is reached through deductive reasoning, before which we explained the idea of a when.
Commented [27]: Start new sentence
greatest possible being. Commented [28]: There is confusion here.
If the argument begs the question it means the conclusion is NOT
reached with deductive reasoning but rather circular reasoning
However, one may say that we are only playing on definitions, which actually is without any external premises.
Rephrase
Commented [29]: with
somewhat accurate. We can call such an argument where one of the premises is logically
Commented [30]: redundant.
The word somewhat is enough
equivalent to the conclusion as being circular in nature, making this argument vulnerable since
Commented [31]: Unclear.
It is better (I think) to say that with this definition the ontological
its logically fallacious! Nevertheless, theists dont acknowledge this argument as the sole proof argument may be considered as begging the question but later on
defend that this is not exactly true because theists are not claiming
this is the only standalone argument for God.
for Gods existence; its premises must be supported by other arguments. However, it is still a

sound argument and provides a rational and logical reason that shows us that a greatest possible

being is possible and has necessary existence.

In conclusion, as a final judgment for the ontological argument, its valid when its

premises are well verified. I have provide good reason to assume that a greatest possible being Commented [32]: Its sound since its premises are
guaranteed to be true.
Or.
exists without it being self-contradictory, and tried to prove that it is actually possible that a Its a valid argument with good grounds for believing that the
premises are true; which makes the ontological argument a strong
argument for Gods existence.
metaphysical being does exist. This argument is nonetheless a strong ground for theism and
Commented [33]: Have provided good reasons

renders atheism on a shaky ground. However, we have to mention that its not a solo defender of Commented [34]: omit
Commented [35]: this arguments thus establishes firm
foundations for the truth of theism, while on the other hand
the existence of God, as we have seen it needs other a posteriori evidence to support its claim. renders atheism less likely to be true.

My second point is that this argument is not meant to prove the concept of God it only informs Commented [36]: Make into two sentences.
Of God. Rather its purpose is to inform etc etc
us that of the conceptual understanding of the greatest possible being, and if there is maximal

greatness then a metaphysically necessary being does exist. Commented [37]: Maximally great being
Commented [38]: MUST