Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God - Essay Example

Anselms ontological argument for the existence of God Introduction Anselm’s argument for Gods existence is oneof the most debated arguments for the existence of God (Geisler, 1976, 89). This argument is called an ontological argument is because it focuses on the metaphysics of existence and truth in order to derive a theory, or argument that can be used to determine that God does exist in reality, not just as a conception of the human mind. It was put forwards by Anselm in his book, Proslogian. It was later challenges by a number of scholars, and those who criticized it during the time of Anslem, he was able to respond to their criticism by wring Proslogian 2 and Proslogian 3. The concept of god is not illogical One of the main strengths of Anselms ontological argument is that it has a logical structure (Beilby, 2011, 45). Unlike most arguments that are base on fallacy and do not have logical conclusions, the Anselms ontological argument uses logical deduction in order to reach a logical conclusion (Boa, 2012, 154). This makes the argument to qualify as logical arguments, rather than just a fallacy. Anselms ontological argument argues that God is the most perfect being that can ever exist. From this basic argument, he added that because to exist in reality is more perfect than to exist just as a conception in the mind, God must therefore exist in reality in order to really be perfect (Bush, 1983, 19). The biggest challenge that the Anselms ontological argument has received is from Gaunilo of Marmoutier who argued that although the argument looked good as a way to prove that God existed, there was a problem with it since it cannot be applied with anything else apart from proving that God existed. Gaunilo of Marmoutier argues that if the same argument was to be used in other situations, the end result would be different. Gaunilo of Marmoutier was basing his attack on Anselms ontological argument on the basis that the Anselms argument for the existence of God is based on the fact that it would be absurd to conclude that God does not exist if first of all he is the most perfect being that can be conceived to exist, and yet a most perfect being, a being than which no greater being can exist, must exist in order to be most perfect. Gaunilo argued that if the same theory was applied in other situations, it would be possible to imagine a most perfect item, and still the item will not exist, or at least this will not lead to an absurdity if the thing will not exist. He used this analogy; the most perfect island chat could be conceived by the mind. He argues that just because this perfect island is conceivable does not necessarily mean that the island will exist, and does not mean that its failure to exist will be an absurd situation, as identified in Anselms ontological argument about God’s existence. Anselms response to Gaunilo’s criticism of his argument by saying that Gaunilo’s analogy of a perfect island did not apply to his ontological theory of the existence of God, because his argument for the existed of God dealt with an existential being which must necessarily existed. Anselm also extended his response to Gaunilo’s criticism by saying that there can never be a perfect island that the most perfect because an island is a contingent entity, that can be improved, thus making it better, and therefore an island can never acquire a state of perfection. The other strength of the Anselm’s argument is that he is talking of something that can be conceived by anyone (Oppenheimer & Zalta, 2008, 1-11). Almost all human beings, even atheists and agnostics can conceive the conception of a most perfect being in their minds. In this case, Anselm was now then able to derive his argument that this ability to conceive a most perfect being must indicate that that most perfect being, a being than which no greater being can be conceived, must indicate that that being must also exist in reality. As Anslem says, even a fool can conceive the idea of God, or if told, he can understand it. His argument was therefore that the existence of God is necessary, just by the very definition of what God is. His argument is predicated on the idea that if human can conceive a most perfect being, and then he must exist, in understanding and also in reality (Oppenheimer & Zalta, 2007, 28–35). This creates precedence that God must have existed first in order to impact the idea of God in the human mind, both for the very wise and even the very stupid. Anselm’s argument for Gods existence also has hopes of being proven to be valid, due to its deductive nature. For an argument to be a valid argument, it has to have the possibility to be proven. This is so with the Anselm’s argument since it can be proven valid or invalid. He uses a strictly deductive way of proving and his argument can be seen to have the four components of a good argument. Based on these seven steps of deduction, it then become, it can then be proved to be valid or valid, time notwithstanding (House & Jowers, 2011, 15). This means that even without empirical evidence for God, the theory is a valid theory based on its deductive nature. Just like any theories that are common in the science world, which cannot yet be proven to be valid or invalid but still inform a lot of scientific enquiries, so is Anselm’s argument about the existence of God. The other important strength for Anselm’s argument for Gods existence has to do with not necessarily its validity, but the fact that it was not meant to be a scientific evidence for Gods existence. Anselm’s argument for Gods existence was not intended to debate the existence of God, but was meant to be a personal reflection as to why God necessarily exists. In the context of Christianity, this is strong enough because the proof of God’s existence is not very important (Waldie, 1995, 194). Anselm’s argument for Gods existence was therefore not necessarily a scientific piece but just an explanation of why a faith in the existence of God was not an illogical faith. This gives Anselm’s argument for Gods existence more strength, within the limits of religious faith. The other attack on Anslem’s argument for existence of God came from Emanuel Kant. Kant’s objection to ontological argument is probably the most formidable one. He argued that since the ontological argument for the existence of God rests on the argument that a God who necessarily exists in reality is greater than a God who necessarily does not exist, then this is to mean that even a god who does not exist is still a God, only lacking the property of “existing”. This, he found to be confusing and not adding up. He argues that predicating the existence of God in merely the ability to exist is to say that existence is an element of a thing, or a being. Kant argued that exist is not one of the property of God and therefore must not be used to prove his existence or lack of existence thereof. Kant’s main issue with the argument is that it treated the ability to exist as one of the properties defining God. In his arguments against Anselm’s argument, he says that Anselm puts it to look like “exist” is one of the properties of God, such as omnipotence, gracious etc. He argues that since to “exist” is not part of the properties that define God, or even any object at all, arguing that for God to be absolutely perfect he would have to exist in reality as opposed in just the mind of the conceiver, was erroneous. He argues that “exist” is not a predicate of the definition of God and that it is possible for a person to imagine or conceptualize a perfect being that does not exist. He gives an example of a triangle, which can be defined, without it having o exist. He argues that the triangle can be conceived to have three angles, but that does not necessarily mean it has to exist. But if it does exist, it will have to have three angles and three sides. However, Kant’s main issue with Anselm’s argument for Gods existence was that it treats Gods existence as an essence of his being. He did not agree with this view. However, as Grant (2003, 56) says, his attack on Anselm’s argument for Gods existence is still not complete because it can be proven that existence in reality can actually be one of the attributes of something, and even add value or essence to that conceived thing. A good example is the conceptualization of 10 dollars; 10 dollars that only exist in imagination are much less useful than 10 dollars that exist in reality because 10 dollars that exist in reality can be used for economic purposes such as buying something. This was further reinforced by Descartes who also used Anslem’s argument to prove that God exists (Sperring, 2002, 141). What is most great? One of the biggest issues with Anselm’s argument is that is it is based on the conception of the greatest being possible. The problem that can be identified here is with the definition of “the greatest” as Anselm defined it. Today, all religions have their own definition of what or who God is. For instance, Christian believes that his God is the greatest while a Muslim believes that their God, Alah is the greatest. The question is then who is the greatest, the God of Christians (Jehovah) or the God of Muslims (Alah)? In this regard, there is a necessity to for there to be a clear description of what greatest mean to anyone. Without this, the whole argument goes into disarray if the various Gods of almost every religion are considered. Why is existence better than non-existence? One of the weaknesses of the Anselm’s argument is his argument that something that cannot not exist is better than that that which cannot exist. However, he does not supply a reason for this. Why for instance would it be to exist is better than to not exist? In this case, Anselm is assuming that he already knows everything about existence and about not existing. Just like Socrates said that to fear death is to consider one’s self wise while not being wise at all, Anselm was also making the same misstate of thinking that existing is better than not exiting. After all, existing is what makes people to be imperfect and therefore probably the existence of God can be said to only be perfect if he does not exist at all in reality. The other problem that has been cited with regard to Anselm’s argument is the fact that in is argument he assumes that the human being is able to conceive the full potential of God’s perfection. Yet, being a human himself, it would be impossible for him to be able to conceive a God who is perfect because he himself does not have perfection and therefore cannot be able to understand the perfection or the personality of God. Most theories, among them other ontological theories of the existence of God argue that the human mind is too inadequate to understudy the person of God. In this regard, the fact that Anselm’s argument is predicated on the ability of the human mind to conceive a most perfect being (who is God), means that it is already wrong because even the most perfect being that the mind of a human can conceive may still not meet the properties of God, if such a God already exists. The other problem with the Anselms ontological argument for God’s existence is that is only addresses the western theism. The question that must be answered then is; what about other gods who were conceived to be most great? Anselm, in his theorizing addresses the fact that even a fool or a stupid can understand the idea of God. His argument is probably based on the fact that most people have the idea of God, but he fails to recognize that some people have the idea of gods who are not perfect. In most polytheistic societies for instance, not all gods are perceived to be perfect. This can be observed in the religions of ancient Greece and Egypt where there were many gods, some raking lower than others and none of them being considered to be absolutely perfect. The idea of a perfect God only came much later with the newer religions such as Christianity and Islam. In this case, it can be necessarily argued that the Anselms ontological argument only looks at the western monotheistic God, and thereby that virtue alone, his argument is flawed. Anselms argument makes the mistake of assuming that everyone is capable of conceiving a most perfect being, a being than which no greater being can exist. Yet, this can be proved to be untrue, by history as well as the present. In the past, and especially societies that practiced polytheism, the society was always looking for a better god, because in their minds they never conceived a most perfect God who would be so perfect that they would never need another God. The other major problem with Anselms ontological argument is the fact that it could be regarded to be a fallacy where the argument starts with the conclusion and then the inference. Anselms ontological argument postulates that just by the very fact that a perfect God can be conceived to exist, he therefore must exist, because existence in reality is more perfect than just existing in the pigment of the imagination. The problem is that for one to conceive a most possible being, such a person is already assuming that such a God already existed. Personal reflection and conclusion The Anselm’s argument for Gods existence is a good argument in that it is in line with the cosmological argument for God’s existence. The universe is a contingent item and therefore requires a greater being who brought it to being. The universe is also not perfect, and requires a perfect being to have originated it, for it could not have come by itself. The universe, also being a contingent article, is also perceivable by the human senses, and this means it must be inferior to its originator who made it, who is not perceivable with the human senses. As a result, it can only be argued that God does exist, even if his definition may vary from what the human mind can conceive him to be. For God to have been the originator of this universe, then it is necessary for him to have existed beyond jus the conception of the mind, for this is the only way he could have affected the existence of the world in which the human exist, to be able to conceive him. Bibliography Beilby, J. (2011). Thinking About Christian Apologetics: What It Is and Why We Do It. New York, NY: InterVarsity Press. Boa, K. (2012). Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith. New York, NY: InterVarsity Press. Geisler, N. (1976). Christian Apologetics. New York, NY: Baker. Grant, S. (2003). On The Ontological Argument. Richmond Journal of Philosophy, 3 , pp. 1-6. House, W., & Jowers, D. (2011). Reasons for Our Hope: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. New York, NY: B&H Publishing Group. L.R., B. (1983). Classical Readings in Christian Apologetics, A.D. 100-1800, Parts 100-1800. New York, NY: Zondervan. Oppenheimer, P., & Zalta, E. (2008). On the Logic of the Ontological Argument. Journal of Christian Apologetics, 7, 9 , pp. 1-11. Oppenheimer, P., & Zalta, E. (2007). Reflections on the Logic of the Ontological Argument. Studia Neoaristotelica , 4, 1 , pp. 28–35. Sperring, P. (2002). Descartes Proof of the External World. The Richmond Journal of Philosophy, 3 , P. 89-94. Waldie, L. (1995). A Christian Apologetic For Christian Apologists. London, UK: Lulu.com. Read More