Anselm's Ontological Argument Analysis

Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of god is done via “A Priori” argument meaning this argument uses mostly reasoning and definition to prove his point. Anselm begins his Chapter 2 argument with his own understanding of God, “I may understand that you exist as we believe you exist, and that you are what we believe you to be. Now we believe that you are something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). Anslem's understanding of God is a vital part for this argument. Throughout the chapter 2 argument the term “The Fool” is used to refer to those who are atheist. Anselm explains how although “The Fool” may believe there is no God, he certainly understands what he hears when Anselm states his understanding of
God. With this the atheist must at very least admit that God exists in his understanding. Referring back to Anselm’s understanding of God as “Something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). We must admit that the existence of something in reality is far greater than existence in understanding, therefore that than which a greater cannot be thought must exist in reality. We can understand god as an idea there is no reason why we wouldn’t be able to conceive of him in reality. So if the fool were to argue that God only existed in his understanding it would create a contradiction by the very understanding of God. By believing that God exists in understanding but not in reality is saying that, that than which nothing greater can be thought is and is not the greatest thought, as it existing in reality is far greater than living in understanding. That than which nothing greater can be thought must exist both in understanding and in reality. Next I will be discussing Anslem’s Chapter three argument, In order to thoroughly understand this argument we need to fully understand the distinction between necessary and contingent beings.
A necessary being, which “exists so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist” (Feinberg, p. 30) which is basically saying that the existence of this being depends on nothing else for its existence, the existence of this being is absolutely necessary. Anselm refers to God as this type of necessary being in his chapter three argument. Next a contingent being which is “A being whose existence depends on something else and therefore might not have come to exist.” (Feinberg, p. 683). An example of a contingent being would be a human as the existence of a human depends on their parents, being reliant on something for existence is what makes it contingent. We must admit that actually existing is far greater than the possibility of existing, thus a necessary being is greater than a contingent being. Anselm proposes that if the fool were to believe that there is no God, he would be creating a contradiction by his very understanding of God. His understanding of God being “Something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). The contradiction is created as something greater than which nothing can be thought must be the greatest and actual existence is far greater than possible existence. By stating that God does not exist the fool is stating that God is and is not a
necessary being and God being the Greatest must be a necessary being as a necessary being is far greater than being a contingent being. Therefore God must exist by the very nature of a necessary being. Anselm argument for me was not very convincing, although he does use reductio ad absurdum and contradictions so fluently in both of these arguments there was still something missing to this argument for me to invest in it fully. In Anselm’s Chapter two argument he states his understanding of God; though the fool must admit that he understands what Anselm states this does not necessarily make it the fools own understanding of God. This simply makes it the fools understanding of Anselm’s understanding. What in a way corners the fool is Anselm’s understanding of the God being “Something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). If the fool truly understood Anselm he understands that something that than which nothing greater can be thought must exist in reality and not only understanding. This argument isn’t really too convincing for me as all it really does is trap the fool instead of proofing God. Guanilo criticizes Anselm’s arguments at various points from the fools point of view although Guanilo himself is actually a Pope, he is trying to show how weak Anslem’s argument is. Guanilo feels as if by Anselm proposing this argument he is giving an upper hand to the fool who does not believe the existence of God. He first starts of by stating how Anselm states that although the fool may not believe in God, the fool surely does understand what is said when Anselm states his understanding of God (existence in understanding). Guanilo proposes the idea that the fool may be able to replace Gods existence in understanding with any unreal object that the fool himself is able to understand. An example that can be used for this argument would be how us as humans understand the idea of a superhero such as Superman. How we can understand all of the characteristics and behavior of him but even understanding this we know that Superman will never exist in reality. Guanilo feels as if this method for proving the existence of God is very weak as the fool may be able to replace God with any unreal object. In Guanilo’s next refutation he starts off with Anslem’s understanding of God as, “Something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). Guanilo articulates that if Anselm had really made the point that God is so great that he could not be conceived not to exist then this argument would not even be necessary. The fact is that this argument is necessary because the fool has already conceived God as not existing. Thus making Anselm’s argument a weak one. In Guanilo’s next refutation he also starts off with Anslem’s understanding of God as, “Something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). Guanilo feels as if God is really this all powerful being that which nothing greater can be thought than he is obviously far to great for Guanilo to understand as a mere human being. That when Guanilo understands the concept of God he is simply understanding the words that are being spoken but could never actually understand the importance of the words therefore he could conceive of the non-existence of God as he only understands it at words but could never fully grasp the concept of God. Next Guanilo uses an example of someone describing another human being and of their characteristics, behavior etc. Now suppose the person who was describing this human being had actually been lying to you about this person and he does not exist. There is still a pretty clear picture of this person that was entirely made up. The point Guanilo is trying to make here is that although the existence of this person is entirely made up we still have a pretty clear idea of this person because we have experience with and as humans. In the same manor we would not be able to conceive of a God as us as humans never experienced God so we have nothing to reference any of Gods Characteristics from. So it is the case that God actually has even less existence in understanding. In Guanilo’s “Lost Island” argument he basically takes Anslem’s argument for the existence of god and replaces it with the idea of the greatest island.
The same reductio ad absurdum is used in Guanilo’s argument that is used in Anslem’s. The proof starts with someone stating that there is the most excellent island in the ocean but the island does not exist, so it is called lost island. Because the island is lost it is also uninhabited; it is greater in resources than lands that are occupied by humans making it greatest. Guanilo can understand this idea so it exists in understanding. The argument then arises that the most excellent island must exist in reality rather than understanding. Otherwise the greatest island is and is not the greatest. Creating a contradiction. Therefore the island must exist in reality. So the greatest island that does not exist exists. This argument is supposed to prove how foolish Anslem’s argument is and the holes in his
argument. I believe that Guanilo’s Criticisms of Anslem’s argument is very good as it attacks Anselm’s argument at various parts rather than one. In Guanilo’s refutation he provides examples and very strong reasoning as to why Anselm’s argument is a very weak one. One point that Guanilo made that was very convincing on my part was how he stated that us as human being could never truly conceive the idea of God as he is far too great of a concept for us to understand. This was a great point as we truly have absolutely nothing to base our concept of God from and he is far too great to conceive. Guanilo's criticism is very convincing for me as it provides more of a factual base than Anselm's.