God’s existence. The life-long debate amongst humanity.

With many people taking an

attempt at arguing their point, there comes Anselm’s Ontological argument. Proof of God’s

existence can be proven by arguing how God is something that can not be fathomed. The idea

of such greatness could never be seen by people because everyone who tries to conceive the

greatest thing ever will always have something that trumps that idea. Yet here God exists as an

idea in the mind. God exists in the mind as well as reality, because with God’s existence comes

the greatest possible thing in the world, which is something we can not already perceive. Hence

nobody can think of something greater than the greatest thing out there. Therefore, God

exists.1

This argument is what Anselm sets out as proof of God’s existence. It is a bit confusing

to work through at first, but it makes sense as you work your way through it. Let’s start by

establishing in the definition of God to Anselm it is something greater than can be conceived.

With, this goes into how God is the most incredible thing in life. Whether people believe in a

God or not, Anselm makes this point in that people are foolish to deny God’s existence. You

don’t necessarily need to believe in God, but to whatever one’s understanding to be of a being

that is the greatest thing possible, the idea exists. One may understand the ideology of God but

denies its existence. This is irrational though because if one can understand the concept of God,

then how do they know deny it despite having an understanding? You don’t have to believe in

God’s existence, but you are dumb to deny it. Now how does the argument bring God into

existence? With God existing in our understanding, and can be conceived in reality, God is

1
Himma, Kenneth Einar. "Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Accessed March 13, 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/.
already greater than anything that can be conceived, so God is already beyond our

understanding. This is how God exists. God exists in reality because it surpasses our

understanding since the greatest thing can’t be conceived. 2

Now with a better understanding of the argument, why should one believe it? This

argument is so powerful. God is already stated to be this perfect being of power. How can

anyone ever perceive what God is when it is already beyond us? The understanding of the

concept is there, yet there will always be the greater perception of God in a personal

perspective. Then you come to this concept of God is already greater than any idea we try to

interpret of what God is. Life itself is beyond us. Denying a God is falling into irrational behavior

because it is one taking on the concept of providing proof of how there isn’t a god. God is

already beyond us, so how does one prove this? The greatest thing to be thought of can never

come because there will always be someone who sees something greater than the other

person. God is the greatest thing to be thought of. Nobody can ever fathom that.

Think about it, if we can discuss what something is, then shouldn’t it exist in reality? If

we can talk about the works of a car and both have a common understanding of it, the car must

exist for us to conclude to this understanding. Possibilities are limitless. If one does not believe

in god, they can not deny the existence either. It is as though the only two logical answers to a

belief system of a god or agnostic. Denying God is taking on the battle of proving there not to

be a God. How do you prove something that is beyond us?

2
"The Ontological Argument." Princeton University. Accessed March 15, 2018.
https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html.
 Proving there to be a God is a task though too. As strong of an argument as Anselm

presents, there comes Gaunilo’s response of attacking the logic of the argument. If we use the

same logic from Anselm’s Ontological argument, we could argue there being a perfect island.

No matter what someone perceives to be the best island, there will always be an island far

greater than what they think. 3

Another argument came from Kant. Kant argued how “exists” can’t be a predicate. This

pretty much means God can’t be argued to exist as an argument basing the existence as a fact

when there is no strong evidence of existence. Anselm is making a bold argument by making

God’s existence not as much into question. Rather he argues if the idea can be conceived it

must be true. There is no solidifying evidence of God’s existence, rather something that is trying

to bring a concept to be true out of multiple ideologies behind it. 4

Where do I stand on Anselm’s Ontological argument? Personally, I see it having too

many flaws, but it does provide a point. I believe that the argument of God existing due to the

concept of it being up for understanding is flawed in that we can talk about multiple things and

it doesn’t make it real. For example, I can discuss with someone fictional animals such as

dragons and come to conclude what a dragon would be if it existed. Yet Dragons do not exist,

only in imagination. It would put fictional stories up for debate to be real if this concept was

true! Human imagination is powerful. Although human existence is beyond us now, who is to

say it will stay beyond our understanding? At one-point electricity was beyond human

3
Holt, Tim. "Existence-of-God.com." Objections to the Ontological Argument. 2004. Accessed March 15, 2018.
http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontological-objections.html.

4
Millican, Peter. "The One Fatal Flaw In Anselm's Argument." Accessed March 14, 2018.
http://millican.org/papers/2004OntArgMind.pdf.
understanding, but now it is a simple concept that can be explained easily. Who is to say the

creation of life will never be understood? In time, it may become something that is understood

as well as electricity is.

Another flaw that I see is Anselm’s proof of god is that God is the greatest thing

imaginable. To me, the question comes to be what defines the greatest thing imaginable? Sure,

it may be beyond our understanding now, but whenever I come “face to face” with this god

after death or however, how am I to be able to state “Yes! This is the greatest thing

imaginable!” Nothing in life is perfect for a reason. If you look for it, you can find a flaw in

anything. Who would hold a god that allows evil to be the greatest thing imaginable? Who is to

say that world peace isn’t the greatest thing imaginable? Would world peace be God? Do you

see the issue? Yes, nobody can think of the greatest thing possible because it is already beyond

us, however with so much evil and bad in the world, how would this not lead to an imperfect

god? 4

Although I see flaws in Anselm’s argument, I do however agree with him on it being

irrational to deny the existence of god. Maybe not the same definition of what he sees God as,

but I do see god as a potential, just not anything we would expect to be god. I don’t necessarily

see god as a being and rather a power. I think until there is proof of where the world began that

is set in stone, one shouldn’t deny god. You don’t have to believe in god, but don’t deny God’s

existence either. I think this argument can go the other way though. One may believe god

exists, but don’t deny that God doesn’t exist. The concept of God is already beyond people.

Trying to interpret where life comes from is difficult as is, and with an ongoing argument of

whether there is or isn’t a god already drags the question of who is to say they have the right
answer? Keeping an open mind of all possibilities will benefit one much more than only

appealing to what you believe.

All in all, Anselm does present an intriguing argument. It is hard to wrap your mind

around it, but it does make sense once you do. Like most arguments though, it has a fair share

of holes in the argument. Yet it brings an interesting idea that the proof of god resides in the

understanding of the concept itself. If God exists in mind, God exists since there is a mutual

understanding from everyone as their own perception of what god is. Also, the idea of god is

already beyond what we can perceive, so we can’t ever conceive what god may be since in

Anselm’s definition, God is the greatest thing to exist. Anselm does face flaws pointed out by

Gaunilo and Kant’s arguments. The logic and predicate of existence of God creates weak

question to Anselm’s argument, as well as the debate of how an understanding brings

something to be and skepticism towards the ideology of what defines something to be the

greatest, Anselm still holds a strong argument. Considering it is still open for debate, Anselm

succeeded in making a formal argument that many argue for and against. It is quite the idea of

thinking about how God is the greatest thing imaginable, which is something impossible to

think about because nobody can think of the greatest thing. It may not necessarily give

solidifying evidence of there being a god, it does put question to denial of the existence of a

god.
1. Himma, Kenneth Einar. "Anselm: Ontological Argument for God's Existence." Internet

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed March 13, 2018. https://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/.

2. Holt, Tim. "Existence-of-God.com." Objections to the Ontological Argument. 2004. Accessed

March 15, 2018. http://www.existence-of-god.com/ontological-objections.html.

3. Millican, Peter. "The One Fatal Flaw In Anselm's Argument." Accessed March 14, 2018.

http://millican.org/papers/2004OntArgMind.pdf.

4. Oppy, Graham. "Ontological Arguments." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. February 12,

2016. Accessed March 15, 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/.

5. "The Ontological Argument." Princeton University. Accessed March 15, 2018.

https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html.