Summary Of Anselm's Ontological Argument

Anselm’s ontological argument is a deductive argument based on an ‘a priori’ premise, that is, it is based on reason and logic rather than experience of the world. The argument attempts to prove the necessary existence of the God of Classical Theism based on Anselm’s own definition of God – which he believed to be universal. He uses this premise to conclude God’s existence, however, when examining his argument, it is easy to doubt much of what he said. Scholars such as Gaunilo, and later Aquinas, noticed these issues, raising arguments against what Anselm originally stated. More famous opinions were brought up in the 17th century, when Descartes attempted to reformulate the ontological argument, and in the 18th century, when Kant struck Descartes’
The first part refers to Psalm 14:1, where it states ‘the fool says in his heart, “there is no God.”’ – from this, Anselm deduces that the fool must have an understanding of what God is, that he is rejecting. He insists that if we understand God to be that than which nothing greater can be conceived, it is possible to confirm his existence. He argues that existence is superior to non-existence; he, along with many supporters of the argument, use analogies to confirm this (for example, having money in reality is better than having it in the imagination). As God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, one can conclude that he therefore must exist. If he did not, he would not be the greatest. The second part of the argument attempts to prove that God’s existence must be necessary. It states that, as God is unsurpassable in every way, he cannot fail to exist – he must exist, and must always have existed, that is to say, he must have necessary existence. The argument itself is based on a logical idea, however, as it is based on an ‘a priori’ idea, if the premises are incorrect, the entire theory fails. It is based on both the assumption that God is what Anselm believes him to be, and furthermore, the assumption that existence is always better than non-existence – this is not necessarily the
He claimed that the flaws in Anselm’s seemingly reasonable argument could easily be seen if we replace the concept of God with that of an island. Using Anselm’s logic, Gaunilo argued that one could imagine the most excellent lost island – that than which no greater island can be conceived. One could then go on to state that, if the island were to be truly excellent, it must exist in reality. It is obvious that this is not the case, and therefore, according to Gaunilo, the ontological argument fails to prove anything. Anselm later responded to the criticism, arguing that the argument only worked for God, as he has necessary existence, whereas an island, no matter how perfect, must be contingent. However, if one assumes God to be necessary beforehand – as the argument only work son something with necessary existence – the argument need not attempt to prove this. Moreover, if one assumes the necessary existence before putting the argument forward, it can be used to prove the existence of any being believed necessary, such as a god other than the God of Classical