Describe and explain Anselm's Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument is one of five classical arguments for the existence of God, using a prior logic (knowledge without experience). It was formulated primarily by St Anselm (1033-1109), defining God as a being that than which nothing greater can be conceived. The argument tends to be laid out as such; God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is better to exist in the mind and also in reality than to exist in the mind alone, existence is a predicate (property) of perfection, therefore God exists in reality – if he did not exist in reality and only in the mind he would therefore not be the that than which nothing greater can be conceived. Anselm compared a non-believer to a fool. The fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’ and it is ‘absurd’, despite accepting the argument. However, if you understand the definition of God you cannot deny he exists in reality, because to deny this would make him imperfect and hence only existing in the mind would be plausible.

Gaunilo refuted the argument, disputing against Anselm using his Island Analogy; picture the most perfect island, it is more perfect than any island, for it to be the most perfect island it must exist in reality as well as in the mind, it is the most perfect island, therefore it exists in reality. This example clearly shows of many things one can think of being most perfect but it does not make the islands existence so. Anselm responded to this criticism explaining islands are contingent (those with a beginning or end that can be non-existent), whereas God is a necessary being (something that cannot be conceived as not existing. Something which cannot be conceived as not existing is greater than something that can be. An island is a material ‘thing’, whereas God is not.

A strength of Anselm’s Ontological Argument is its logic – it makes sense. The argument is a clever case for the existence of God and, in my opinion, the strongest. If God is all perfect, he must be the greatest thing that one can ever think of and to be the greatest thing he must exist. If he did not exist in reality, he would not be the greatest thing and it would be greater for him to exist in reality as well as in the mind. Finally, a weakness lies in the truth that many understand this argument, like myself, although we do not believe it. It is a logical, clever argument for the existence of God and while I understand it, I do not believe God exists, and hence I do not think of him as perfect, therefore in my eyes it is logical that he only exists in the mind – we can just as easily reverse the argument and use it against its own idea. Hence, this argument is completely invalid for those who already don’t believe God exists in reality.