Anselm's Ontological Argument

994 Words4 Pages
The Ontological Argument is defined as the argument that God, being described as the most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not (Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100250688). It belongs to the Philosophy of Religions and not Theology; there is a difference between Philosophy of Religion and Theology, even though they both take God and religion as their subject. Theology starts with assuming that God exists and aids in figuring out what follows or it sometimes solves philosophical problems that might arise from the belief in God. Theology is slightly more strict and they have limits to their premises, one of those limits is not believing in God. Another…show more content…
However much absurd this argument may be, it truly was such a beautiful type of reasoning in the eyes of all philosophers. Anselm’s ontological argument started off by stating that the most perfect “thing” that one could possible think of is God and that there is nothing higher. In the Prolsogium, Anselm talked about how his argument is a theoretical truth that God is a “being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (page 19); in other words, God is the best thing imaginable. Anselm is basically stating that whatever you think is the best thing ever to exist, whether it be as an imagination or in reality, God would be at a much higher level. Another thing he states is that God exists as an idea in the mind, simply because He is not in reality, but in our imagination. However, Anselm states that a being that exists as an idea in one’s mind, and exists in reality, is eventually greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind with all other things being equal. An example of this is unicorns and horses; if we applied Anselm’s statement to this example, the horse would be greater than the unicorn. Obviously, the unicorn would be greater than the horse, in the mind, yet the horse would still be greater than the unicorn; simply because the horse is in reality and the unicorn is not. Anselm tries to prove his premises by Reductio Ad Absurdum, where he opposes certain premises to show that in the end that the counter-premise is false…show more content…
He continues on following the Ontological argument but with island as the main point which then leads to the conclusion that his perfect non-existent island exists. This shows that Anselm’s argument is not satisfactory to the existence of God. My opinion of Guanilo’s objection is that it is incoherent. There could always be a ‘more perfect island’ than the island last imagined. The change of perfection could be due to the need of adding a fruit to a certain tree, which doesn 't maximize the islands full perfection; while in Anselm’s argument, God is already at maximum due to all the properties like knowledge, power, and goodness. Now if we were to put those certain properties as maximum perfection, it would be impossible for a being to be more knowledgable than the being that has maximum knowledge, more power than the being that has maximum power, and the same thing for goodness. This shows that Anselm’s argument is more valid than Guanilo because the properties admit intrinsic maximum rather than properties that could vary
Open Document