Anselm’s Ontological Argument Essay Example

person's mind if they comprehend statements about Him, regardless of whether they truly believe in His existence. To illustrate this idea, he likens it to a painter who first conceives an image mentally before putting it on canvas. Thus, for Anselm, we can assert that our understanding encompasses the existence of God.

His denial of existence is because he has not yet created his painting. Essentially, he argues that there is a difference between acknowledging something exists in one's mind and truly believing it exists. Anselm introduces a novel variation of the argument, positing that God cannot exclusively exist within one's comprehension as this differs from actual reality. One of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, raised objections to his argument initially. He noted that Anselm's reasoning could be applied beyond just the concept of God.

If the logic were sound, it could be extended to even imaginary entities. This scenario is exemplified by the concept of the "lost island." The author, Gaunilo, proposed that readers imagine the most exceptional or flawless island, which probably does not have a physical existence. Nevertheless, according to his argument, if we cannot locate such an island, we are not actually imagining the utmost perfect island that would possess all of those coveted traits along with physical existence.

Note that the application of Anselm's premise regarding existence as a perfection leads to the conclusion that the greatest or most perfect conceivable island must also exist. Although this argument may appear illogical, Gaunilo suggests that it is not more invalid than Anselm's argument. However, Gaunilo maintains that a supplementary argument is necessary to prove the existence of a being resembling Anselm's description.

Gaunilo

highlights another issue with Anselm’s argument, which concerns the comprehensibility of the concept of God. As God is unlike any other entity or idea that humans have ever known, Gaunilo raises doubts on whether it is even possible to conceive of such a being. Meanwhile, Aquinas disagreed with the notion that God’s existence can be deduced from claims about God's concept, despite believing that it is self-evident. Aquinas rationally posited that not everyone who hears the word ‘God’ perceives it to represent something greater than all else, as certain individuals believed God to be a physical form.

The argument presented relies on the understanding that individuals have varying definitions of God. Therefore, its effectiveness is limited to those who share a common definition. Aquinas encountered a second issue with the ontological argument, believing that even if everyone shared the idea of God as the greatest conceivable being, it did not prove its existence in reality, only in the mind. Kant addressed the pragmatic requirement for accepting the belief in God in his Critique of Pure Reason.

In the realm of pure reason, there is no justification for assuming the absolute existence of the object of the idea of God. However, this idea cannot be separated from its association with happiness and morality as the ultimate expression of goodness. This connection is based on an intelligible moral universe and is essential from a practical standpoint. In his Logic, Immanuel Kant maintains that the idea of God can only be verified through the moral law and solely for practical purposes, wherein one acts as though God exists. Kant famously opposes premise 3's assertion that a being that exists

as both an idea and in reality is greater than one that exists merely as an idea, due to his belief that existence does not constitute a predicate.

After examining multiple philosophers, I am particularly swayed by Gaunilo's argument. Gaunilo effectively undermines Anselm's claim by pointing out its broad implications beyond the existence of a specific thing. If Anselm's argument held true, anything that we could conceive of might actually exist.

Despite my belief in God, Gaunilo's argument is completely logical to me.