Winston C.

Quilaton
Emmanuel Servants of the Holy Trinity (ESHT)
Special Class on Theodicy
Rev. Fr. Pacifico C. Misajon

St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument on the Existence of God

Abstract

Most people hold the belief that God exists, and many have made an effort to offer logical
justifications or proofs for this belief. Some claim that religion is the one subject in which there is no
need for discussion because faith is sufficient. However, philosophy does not accept faith as a solution.
Although Anselm bases his argument for God's existence in his Proslogium, primarily on reason, he
offers it as a justification of Christian faith. Based on what he believed to be the nature of God's being,
or by the definition of God, he presented a deductive argument for God's existence. The ontological
argument was first put out by St. Anselm, who contends that once we comprehend God's nature as a
"being than which nothing greater can be conceived," we recognize that his existence is implied by
nothing less than his nature. In other words, one could contend that since God is a flawless entity, the
lack of his existence is an imperfection. God must therefore exist since he is perfect. However, Gaunilo,
another of his contemporaries, developed a counterargument that had the exact same formal
framework as Anselm's deduction. In response, Gaunilo's claim is limited to the one and only God, who
is a necessary being.

Anselm of Canterbury
St. Anselm (1033-1109), a member of the Benedictine Order and Bishop of Canterbury, extended the
Augustine tradition of seeking to believe in order to understand the truth and existence of God rather
that seeking to understand in order to believe in the truth and existence of God. Even so, St. Anselm
does not distinguish clearly between religious and philosophical pursuits. Many theologians avoid
trusting reason from the fear of the specter of skepticism; however, Anselm believes reason is
necessary to elucidate and validate faith. Anselm is often considered to be the father of scholastic
philosophy since his work emphasizes linguistic and analytical thinking. Scholasticism was the
dominant approach to philosophical and theological problems during the medieval period.

Anselm's Proslogium: A Discourse on The Existence of God

Anselm’s argument is an a priori argument. A priori argument is one that is founded only on concepts
and logical relationships, much like a mathematical proof, and is thus independent of experience. In
this brief work the author (Anselm) aims at proving in a single argument the existence of God, and
whatsoever we believe of God. The author writes in the person of one who contemplates God, and
seeks to understand what he believes. To this work he had given this title: Faith Seeking
Understanding. He finally named it Proslogium, --that is, A Discourse.
What we are doing is considering whether we can offer arguments in support of belief in God’s
existence. And a long time ago, there was a man who argued that God’s existence is provable: 11th
century French monk Anselm of Canterbury. He offered a deductive argument for the existence of God,
based on what he understood to be the nature of God’s being, or the definition of God. Because the
study of being is called ontology, this argument, and others like it, are called ontological arguments. In
fact, he thought that God is, by definition, the best possible thing we can imagine. Anselm said that God
is better. He’s just the best. In Anselm’s words, God is “that than which no greater can be conceived.”
It means God must exist, according to Anselm.
Now: What do you think God is like? An old man father-figure having a long hair with a beard and
mustache that is so hard to reach. Well, Anselm aimed a little bit higher. In fact, he thought that God
is, by definition, the best possible thing we can imagine.
THE. BEST. THING.
Just try to think of the coolest, mesmerizing, and most amazing thing you can imagine. And whatever
you’re thinking of, Anselm said that God is better. He’s just the best. In Anselm’s words, God is “that
than which no greater can be conceived.” So what does that mean? Well, it means God must exist,
according to Anselm. After all, he pointed out, there are just two ways in which something can exist.

1. Something can exist only in our minds (e.g., mermaids and dragons)
2. Something can exist both in our minds and in reality (e.g., apple and dog)

Something can exist only in our minds and be strictly imaginary – mermaids and dragons. Or it can
exist in our minds but also in reality, like apple and dog – something that we can imagine, but that’s
also real. Anselm pointed out – and he does appear to be right about this – that any good thing would
be better if it existed in reality as well as in our minds. I mean: dragons. They’re pretty great. But
wouldn’t they be better if they were real? Would be pretty nice in your mind, but EVEN BETTER if
they actually existed. Well Anselm thought so too. Because the only thing that could potentially be
better than God would be a genuine version if we define him as the greatest thing we can imagine in
our minds. There can't be anything greater as we're already picturing the greatest thing imaginable.
God must therefore exist—both in my mind and in the real world. Anselm was confident that he had
used deductive reasoning to establish God's existence in a way that could not be proven to be false.
Here it is, one more time, laid out as a philosophical argument, which he describes in the Proslogium
as follows:
“And so, Lord, do thou, who dost…….
The argument in this difficult passage can accurately be summarized in standard form:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none
greater can be imagined (God is the greatest thing we can think of).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is, other things being equal, greater
than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. (Things can exist only in our imaginations,
or they can also exist in reality. Things that exist in reality are always better than things that
exist only in our imaginations.)
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater
than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). (If God existed only in our
imaginations, he wouldn’t be the greatest thing that we can think of, because God in reality would
be better.)
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose
that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
C. Therefore, God exists.

Gaunilo’s argument
Anselm thought this was a tidy little argument. In our discussion of Anselm, we learned that his goal
was to demonstrate the reductio ad absurdum of the atheist's argument by demonstrating how the
assumption that God does not actually exist results in an absurdity. One of his contemporaries, a fellow
French monk named Gaunilo, wasn’t satisfied. In short, Gaunilo is attempting to offer a reductio of
Anselm's claim.
1. If Anselm’s proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable being were sound, then we could
give a sound proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable island.
2. We cannot give a sound proof of the existence of a greatest conceivable island.
- Therefore, Anselm’s proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable being is not sound.
- Speaks, 2006
He suggested that we could run the same line of reasoning to prove the existence of literally anything
we can imagine. He came up with an argument with the exact same formal structure as Anselm’s, to
prove that a mythical Lost Island exists.
He presents his reasons in 6th of his ‘Reply on Behalf of the Fool’:
“For example: it is said that somewhere in the ocean is an island, which…
In outline, Gaunilo’s counter-example to Anselm goes like this:
1. It is a conceptual truth that a lost island is an island than which none greater can be imagined
(that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).
2. A lost island exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A lost island that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is greater than a lost island that
exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if a lost island exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an island that is
greater than a lost island (that is, a greatest possible island that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a lost island.
C. Therefore, a lost island exists.
The best island I can imagine is one where I can swim and relax on a tropical beach and ski down
snow-covered mountains all in one day. I can imagine it, so it must exist. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be the
best island – there would be one better and that one would have to be real! Basically, Gaunilo said,
you could make the same kind of argument to prove the existence of whatever you wanted most – but
it wouldn’t make it real. Anselm responded to Gaunilo’s criticism by saying he’d missed the point, that
the argument only works for necessary beings, of which there is only one – God. Folks, what we have
right here is a classic example of the fallacy known as begging the question. A fallacy is a flaw in
reasoning, something that weakens or destroys an argument. And when you beg the question, you
assume the very thing you’re trying to prove with your argument. By adding this idea of “a necessary
being” to his definition of God, Anselm makes God’s existence a part of the definition of God. A
necessary being is one that must exist, so Anselm’s response assumed the very point of contention to
be true – that God exists!

Here is a revised version of the ontological argument:

1. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. (Definition)
2. God does not exist in reality. (Premise to be reduced to absurdity)
3. It is greater to exist in reality than not to exist in reality. (Premise)
4. It is conceivable that God exists in reality. (Premise)
5. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than God. (Follows from 2', 3', and 4)
C. It is conceivable that there is a being greater than that than which nothing greater can be
conceived. (Follows from 1 and 5)

Other philosophers since Anselm have tried to save his argument by tweaking it in various ways, and
dissenters have continued trying to deflate them. One of the most famous objections came hundreds
of years after Anselm’s time, from the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant offered
the point that, as he put it, “existence is not a predicate.”