The ontological argument was started by a man named St. Anslem. This argument about the existence of God was perhaps the most influential in history and still continues to be a subject of heated debates today. He was a member of the Benedictine Order and Canterbury Bishop that was seeking to know the truth and to understand it alongside the existence of God. He was known as the father of philosophy that is scholastic because his work focused on analytical thinking and linguistics. He was never able to tell the difference between philosophical and religious pursuits. He however believed that is was important to validate and elucidate faith. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find validity in his argument and why it should not be supported.
Background
Anslem presented the documented arguments in Proslogions II and III and begins by defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” He also notices that scripturally, in order for a fool to deny the existence of God and understand it all, he must grant understanding to the existence of God. In his argument he asserts that God, defined as the most perfect or great must exist because of the existing God is more powerful than the God who does not exist. By claiming he understands that God does exists and saying he does not believe that God exist only shows how his combination of confusion. The statement is inaccurate because God cannot be regarded not to exist and it gives a contradiction that is irreconcilable.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The conclusion made is that God does exist and he believed that conceiving takes place in two ways. One of the ways is when the word illustrating it is conceived and when the particular thing itself is well understood. In reality, God cannot be conceived not to exist but can as far as words go. In chapter I, he believed in the existence of God however in chapter II, he seems to want to understand the existence of God which shows contradiction making him inconsistent (Princeton University). In chapter III, he finally believes that God exists and He cannot be thought of as non-existent.
Other literature by Anselm in relation to the ontological arguments
The Monologion that was also written by St. Anselm was also an attempt made by him to prove that God exists. In his earlier work, the Monologion, he offers proof that is based on observations made in relation to heredity of characters by various beings. He believed that beings that existed obtained their characters from themselves or through other beings. He further believed that the existence of a being that inherited characters from another being was lower compared to the being from which the inheritance is taking place. He discovered that being through which other beings inherited their characters from was one being and he named the being God. The observation he made, led to his conclusion that God does exist. This is true because all life has some sort of roots telling where they came from. The source of life is God, which is in agreement with Anselm.
When writing the Monologion, Anselm took the role of an individual who was investigating the existence of God. This book in itself is more of a self-discovery narrative. The Proslogion, however, is written in form of an argument where his challenger is the fool described in Psalm xiv 1 who says in his heart that there is not God. The book does not focus of meditation or self-discovery anymore. It concentrates on finding evidence to support his argument about the existence of God. His argument did not require the ‘fool’ to be a follower of Christ except that they only believe that God is greater.
Analysis of the Proslogion
In the Proslogion, Anselm’s argument can be divided into parts. Oppy (2016) begins with the first part which focuses on the existence of God in the understanding of people but not in their reality. This led to the reductio assumption which made many people to try and disapprove it. The second part of the argument is that existence of something or a being in reality is greater than its existence in the understanding of people. Knowing and having proof of the existence of God is better than just saying it. This is what prompted Anselm to look for evidence in order to prove the existence of God. The third part of the argument is that a being that has all the properties of God in addition to its existence is able to be conceived in reality. Here, Anselm was trying to compare gods. He argue that an existing God is greater than the one who does not. It is this that led to the fourth portion of his argument where he believed a god who existed had had all the attributes of God is greater than the one with the attributes and does not exist.
He also argued that by being greater than God, there is a possibility of conception. Oppy (2016) further argued that it is false that a being that is greater than God can be conceptualized. This was obtained from his definition of God that states that “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Therefore, the conclusion he made from the first, fifth and sixth arguments is that it would be false to say that God exists in the understanding of beings and not in their reality. This is supported by the ‘fool’ who says there is not God as He exists in the knowledge and understanding on men. Only those who do not understand say there is no God. The conclusion made by Anselm therefore is that God is found in our reality just as much as He exists in our understanding which is also supported by Princeton University.
Reasons for not supporting it
According to Oppy (2016), this argument has been improved and further interpreted by Barnes (1972), Adams (1971), Lewis (1970), and Zalta and Oppenheimer (1991). However, their interpretations did not match Anselm’s. An example of this is the interpretations given by Oppenheimer and Zalta, Barnes and Adams which produce more arguments because of the principles involve in them making them susceptible to objections. This makes it hard for readers to agree with Anselm’s argument. The interpretations of Adams and Lewis do not match Anselm’s as well. The claim made states that “being than which no greater can be conceived” would have to read as “being than which no greater is possible” so that to mean that God is greater than any other possible being.
Another reason for not supporting his argument is that some of the opinions made by Anselm do not correspond to what he says. The two beings that are identical except for their nature of existences where one exists in reality and understanding and the other in understanding alone, then the first being is greater. However, Barnes 1971 has St. Anselm committed to the belief that every existing being is greater than any non-existent being. Also the fact that the entire argument is based on what a ‘fool’ believes makes it questionable. The thoughts of a ‘fool’ led to the entire argument and is solely grounded on it making the entire run-in problematic. Many questions arise from the discussion such as how are people meant to regiment the references made to the ‘fool’ in the entire discussion? All the questions that arise would make modern logicians pronounce the argument as invalid.
Conclusion
Anselm created one of the concepts that has been debated time and time again. However catchy the topic is, his argument is datable and questionable in many ways including how others have interpreted it. It is not an argument that one can easily support as it needs polishing.
References
Oppy, G., (2016). Ontological Arguments: St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/
Princeton University, (2018). Anselm's Ontological Argument, Princeton University. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/
