My Philosophy Paper

So This paper took me a lot of thoughts and time. So I decided that it's worth being put up here. So here it is!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anselm’s Ontological Argument: the Attempted Failure

Religion, the service and worship of God or the supernatural, has bring forth an ongoing controversy between those who places their faith in God and those who believes in numbers and data. The valid and convincing evidences and logics from both sides clash over and over again with no conclusion to this endless war of contradiction of human perceptions. However, the religious side seems to be fighting a losing battle due to the lack of physical evidence. Thus, the only way to prove the existence of God for us mortals is through the examination of the concept of God itself. This is called the ontological argument, an argument from the nature of God to the existence of God.

St. Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury, attempted to prove the existence of God through his ontological argument. It is as follows:


1) God, by definition, is the greatest being possible.

2) If God exists only in our minds, then it is possible for there to be a being greater than God, namely, a being like God that exists in reality.

3) But it is not possible for there to be a being greater than God.

4) Therefore God must exist in reality.


A being that exists in mind cannot be greater than a being that exists in reality. So if God existed only in our minds, it would be possible for there to be a being greater than God, namely a being like God, to exist in reality. Although this argument is valid on the surface, the majority of the people find this very hard to accept. The mere thought of defining something into existence is simply unconvincing and absurd, and I agree.

The second step of his ontological process is the root of his failure. If God exists only in our minds, then everything that exists around us in reality is greater than the God in our mind. If everything that exists in reality go through a series of comparison and ultimately are arranged in order from the least to the greatest being that exists, the last item to be implemented to the series will be the greatest being possible in reality. But as we all know, nothing that exists in this physical world is perfect. And having something that exists in reality labeled as “God” is contradicting because “God”, by definition, is perfect; while the physical being is not.

Guanilo, a contemporary of Anselm, shared the critical view of the majority and created a thought experiment known as Guanilo’s Lost Island to demonstrate the shortcomings of Anselm’s ontological argument. His thought experiment directly attacked Anselm’s logic. The greatest island, by definition, would have the best ideal climate possible. However, according to Anselm’s logic, if such island did not exist, then it would not be the greatest island possible. So, by similar reasoning, it would seem that the greatest island possible must exist.

Of course, Anselm was aware of such loophole in his argument and attempted to amend it by claiming that his argument applied only to the scenario of the greatest being possible. However, such attempt did not help his argument. Rather, it helped digging its own grave. If the existence is intrinsic to God because it makes him better, it is hard to see why it could not be intrinsic to other things as well.

What went wrong with Anselm’s argument? The problem lies within the concept of “exists only in the understanding.” To simplify the matter, let x represents something that exists only in the mind. To say that x exists only in the mind is to say that the concept of x does not apply to anything in reality. Similarly, to say that God exists only in the mind is to say that the concept of God does not apply to anything in reality. There is no contradiction involved in saying that the concept of the greatest being possible is not exemplified. Therefore, Anselm’s attempt fails to prove the existence of God.

Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth-century philosopher, bashed the whole method which Anselm pursued. Kant reasoned that existence is not an attribute of an object like temperature, size, and the like. According to him, existence is not “something that can simply be associated with the definition of an object”. To further amplify his argument, he gave the example of a “quircle”. It is given information that a quircle is a circle that exists. Just from this, it seems impossible for us to reach any other conclusion other than that a “quircle” exists, for the definition told us it does exist. However, any intelligent mind in the world would agree that this is obviously not a good reason to believe, for we could prove that anything exists by utilizing this method. Thus, Anselm’s method of pursuing the truth is a failure.

With all due respect, I personally do not find Anselm’s ontological attempt very convincing. Not only do I not agree with his method of choice, but I also do not find his logic sound and valid. Just like the causal theory of the physical, which states that everything that happens can be explained in purely physical terms, it is hard for me to believe that something like God can be defined by anything outside of realm of God. Anselm’s ontological attempt not only utilized the wrong approach in to prove his belief, his logic is also full of flaws and contradictions. Therefore, Anselm’s ontological argument is nothing but a failure.