What if I told you that the existence of God could be proven simply through reason alone? Does this sound like a nearly impossible claim? Well, there exists an argument, or rather, a group of arguments, that attempt to do this very thing. An ontological argument attempts to prove the existence of God a priori, or through reason alone, without reference to experience. The most well known ontological argument is the one put forward by St. Anselm of Canterbury. The argument goes as follows (thanks go to the 'Handbook of Christian Apologetics' for the format):
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "God" means "That than which nothing greater can be thought."
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought."
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.
Lets take a closer look at the terms and premises of the argument.
First, when the argument says "greater", as in "it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone", we must keep in mind that this is in reference to metaphysical substance. For instance, I can imagine a big fire breathing dragon attacking a medevil village. In my mind he is setting houses on fire and causing all sorts of trouble for the villagers. However, this imaginary dragon has no real metaphysical substance, seeing as how it exists simply as a thought in my mind, but a real fire breathing dragon exists independently of my mind. It has the ability to breathe real fire, and cause real damage to real houses and cause real trouble for real people. So, in this sense, the real dragon is greater than the imaginary dragon because he actually exists. That is what the argument is getting at when it speaks of something being "greater."
Secondly, the argument hinges upon Anselm's definition of God as being "that than which nothing greater can be thought." This description of God is actually very good, but we will explore why later. For now, just know that this definition is crucial to the argument, since the premises assume that it is true (obviously, if the defintion of God that the premises are built upon is false, then the argument is false). But what exactly does the definition mean? Well, by saying that God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought", Anselm is saying at least two things. First, that we cannot imagine a greater being than God, because no such being can possibly exist. Again, this conclusion assumes that Anselm's definition of God is true. Secondly, it shows us that whatever God is, He is always what it is better to be (we will get into this further in Part 2).
Thirdly, I would like to take a look at the reasoning of the argument. Essentially, what Anselm is saying through this argument is that since God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought" He must actually exist, but why is this? Well, because according to God's very defintion, as given by Anselm, nothing can exist that is greater than God. However, if God doesn't actually exist, then I can imagine a being that is just like God, and I can take it a step further by imagining that this being actually exists. In doing this, I will have thought of a being that is greater than God, since this being is thought of as actually existing . Yet, this would contradict the idea of God. So Anselm concludes that God must actually exist.
Lastly, I would like to address the conclusion. Does it actually follow from the argument that God must exist? Truthfully, no it does not.
Two Famous Critics
The argument has seen at least two famous critics. The first of which was a monk named Gaunillo, who lived at the same time as Anselm. Gaunillo wrote a response to Anselm's argument in which lies his famous "Gaunillo's Island" refutation of the argument. Anselm himself replied to Gaunilo, but his response hasn't left too much of an impression.
(Note: I might do a blog further exploring Guanillo's response and Anselm's reply).
The second critic of Anselm's argument, and arguably the one who settled the matter, was the german philosopher Immanuel Kant, who interestingly enough, is the one who actually labeled Anselm's argument the "ontological argument." Kan'ts criticism consists of pointing out that Anselm treats existence as a further property that something can posses, when in reality, existence is the state of having any properties at all, and is not itself simply another property.
Is the Argument of Any Use to Us?
It might at first seem that since the argument has been refuted, it cannot be of much use to us. However, I would like to point out that the argument wasn't made for the sake of reaching the nonbeliever. Rather, the argument was made in an attempt to create a master argument by which several other arguments about God could be proven. In other words, Anselm wanted to create an argument that proved a bunch of other arguments in and of itself. On this ground, the argument is actually very useful. We will explore this application of the argument further in Part 2.
- God bless and Jesus loves you!!
