An Argument for St. Anselm's Ontological Argument of the Existence of God

The existence, or lack thereof, of any sort of god, or higher power, is impossible to truly prove because, by definition, they exist outside of our own existence and are thus, unobservable. This does not mean there are not measures to determine if they can exist, somewhere. To this end, there are two main arguments for the existence of god: the ontological argument and the cosmological argument. It is important for whichever theory that is applied to the existence of god be applicable in the realm of existence the god must reside in as well. This is to establish a sort of common ground between this realm of existence and theirs, and the only real common ground is existence itself. For this reason, this essay will examine the merits and weaknesses of the ontological argument, which focuses on the state of god existing within oneself, i.e. the psyche. The main point here is that St. Anselm's ontological argument is an effective theory for arguing the existence of God, or any other higher being, for that matter.

The ontological argument was originally proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury and, rather than attempting to actually prove the existence of God, explains how the idea of god occurred to him. St. Anselm presented the first ontological argument, which simply states that because God exists in the mind, and nothing more powerful can be imagined, god must exist. To put it into perspective, it is helpful to imagine something that does not exist, such as elves. "Now, says St. Anselm, something a greater than which cannot be conceived exists in the understanding. But it cannot exist only in the understanding, for to exist in reality is greater. Therefore that thing a greater than which cannot be conceived cannot exist only in the understanding, for then a greater thing could be conceived: namely, one that exists both in the understanding and in reality," (Malcolm 41). This argument helps to prove the existence of god from a reductionist perspective. That is, there are only two things: existence, and non-existence, and even something that exists in a mind still exists on some basic level. St. Anselm's ontological argument is just the tip of the iceberg, as many other philosophers and thinkers have come up with addendums to this argument, as well as objections. In order to better understand St. Anselm's ontological argument, it is necessary to examine his argument as expanded upon by other philosophers, such as Rene Descartes. Descartes' ontological argument begins with the actual formation of the thought of the concept of an omnipotent being. This, ontological argument proponents argue, forms the foundation for the existence of God. "If the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number," (Descartes 45). This particular argument is effective because it establishes the existence of some sort of god within everybody, that is, their own psyche. Descartes is one of the main supporters of this idea. Descartes relates the deduction process for the existence of God as relatable to geometric ideas from geometric shapes. For example, it is possible to see the idea (a triangle) from looking at a triangular object. By the same token, it is possible to do the reverse, and imagine a perfect being, so, by that logic, it must exist, somewhere, on some plane of existence.

Another interesting ontological theory is that of Mulla Sadra, who came up with the "Argument of the Righteous." Essentially, this argument attempts to prove the existence of god through a multi-step, logical process, beginning with that there is existence, and that this existence is perfection, that god is this perfection, and that this perfection is a singular reality. Thus, there must be a finite limit to the intensity of reality, and this terminal point is a god. This argument argues more for some sort of ultimate point in existence who must be god, not necessarily that there is an intelligent creator or anything of the sort. Both of these philosophers expand on St. Anselm's original ontological argument by adding more and differing criteria for determining the existence of god. The fluidity of the ontological argument (that is to say, virtually anyone can take the argument and relate it to themselves in some way) makes it extremely useful, and a definite front-runner for proving the existence of God. This argument takes advantage of the root of where the concept of god comes from, which is the mind, ultimately.

However, there are some who see things differently. One such philosopher is named Gottfriend Leibniz. Leibniz's main objection with Descartes' argument of a perfect being is the assertion that there is such a thing as a "perfect being." He believes that such a term is impossible to truly examine, but that it was still possible for a god to possess these qualities. Nevertheless, this does bring up one of the main problems with the ontological theory: that perfection is a difficult term to examine, since perfection, many would argue, does not exist. Perhaps one of the most famous, and most valid, objections to St. Anselm's ontological argument is Immanuel Kant's objections found in his book "Critique of Pure Reason." In this book, Kant rebukes several of the ontological concepts perpetuated by Descartes in his "Meditation" work as well as St. Anselm. Namely, Kant argues that the predicate, that is, the particular assertion by St. Anselm that if god can be imaged, he must exist, is a tautology, because St. Anselm's assertions reference something already contained within another concept. Kant takes this stance even further by stating that existence cannot be broken down into mere thoughts by saying that "'being' is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing. It is merely the positing of a thing, or of certain determinations in it" (Kant 348). Essentially, Kant is making the valid argument that thoughts and feelings should not be considered in arguments about existence because these thoughts, themselves do not exist. They merely exist within something else.

However, these objections by Kant fail to take into account some of the primary tenants of the ontological argument, which is that it is self-contained by the individual. Kant is examining the issue from the cosmological point of view. That is, from an omnipotent perspective. In order to understand the ontological argument, it is necessary to localize all thoughts and calculations to the individual. Arguments that Kant puts forth about the overall nature of existence are not valid since they exist outside of an individual, even if the individual actually exists.

In conclusion, the ontological argument is a satisfactory and effective method for proving the existence of God, because it does not claim to make any sweeping declarations about the nature of the universe, as the cosmological argument does. It simply begins and ends with the individual, and that cognition is the only requirement for the existence of a supreme being. This is helpful mainly because it helps to make the existence of god understandable to the layman, as St. Anselm mentions "the fool" being able to grasp his ontological views many times throughout his writings. Obviously the existence of god, or any supreme being, cannot be proven through any sort of evidence, but the ontological argument for the existence of god supplies the tools for at least understanding the process through which one may determine whether or not a god exists, as each individual has their own personal definition of god.

Works Cited

Descartes, René. "Descartes: Meditations on first philosophy: With selections from the objections and replies." Cambridge University Press, 1996. 45-47

Kant, Immanuel. "The Critique of Pure Reason" Penn State University. 1781. 348-350

Malcolm, Norman. "St. Anselm's ontological arguments." The Philosophical Review, vol. 69 no.1, 1960, pp. 41-62.