St. Anselm’s ontological argument provides an innovative solution to the question of God. Anselm is able to derive that God exists pretty much form the definition of God. God is perfection, the terms ore synonymous. Therefore, perfection entails existence. God is the greatest being that the mind can conceive of nothing greater: “Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined” (Barnes). This is a premise that we all understand.
However, Anselm takes the argument to the next philosophical level when he asserts the second premise of his ontological argument which is that existence is greater than not existing. For this author, Anselm has a pretty strong argument based on his second premise. Then he continues to solidify that God exists by adding that if God does exist only as an idea, then we must be able to imagine we can think of something greater than God that exists in reality. But, because we cannot think of something greater than God, then God must exist based on premise two.
This essay supports Anselm’s argument. It is one of the only arguments about God’s existence that does not appeal to faith, or that does not appeal to emotion. There is only logic that is employed in Anselm’s argument. He is stating that a greater God could not be absent. It would not make sense that God does not exist, but that we conceive of him and that we cannot conceive of anything greater. This is how the definition of God seems to define himself. It is similar to the way that the word bachelor defines its self by its definition. There is an ontological argument for bachelor as well: it would be that all bachelors are unmarried men and that one cannot imagine a bachelor who is married. Therefore, a bachelor is married. In the same logical vein, no one can imagine that there is a God that is almost so great to actually exist, but that he fails at the act of existence. It just does not logically make sense that God would not exist given this logical argument.
The premises follow that because there cannot be a greater being that is conceived, and because existence is greater than non-existence, St. Anselm concludes that God exists. This makes sense to this author, because perfection and God are synonymous. It seems that all of the objections to the ontological argument stray from the ontological roots that St. Anselm stuck to. there are no other terms that can self-define like God. This is why God is unique, and this is why the argument of God’s existence can be based on his ontology. There is not any other thing that can be defined by the ontology of absolute perfection. God is the only one. This confirms the soundness of St. Anselm’s argument.
There have been objections to Anselm’s argument, primarily from Gaunilo who proposes the island analogy. Gaunilo create an objection that there is such thing as a perfect island. He mimics St. Anselm’s argument, but he replaces God with an “island”. This island is to be the most perfect island that can be imagined (Himma). Because we imagine this island, Gaunilo fallaciously interprets that the island must exist based on the idea that existence is part of the definition of perfection. However, this essay argues that Gaunilo is fallacious because an island does not entail the essence of perfection in its definition: “…or if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it; and so the island understood by you to be more excellent will not be more excellent.” (Himma). This is not an accurate interpretation of St. Anselm’s argument because there are ontological differences between God and an island.
The ontological argument is called an ontological argument because it is based on the definition of God, and not on his properties. Islands have properties, and God only has his ontological definition. There are no other entities that the ontological argument could possibly work for. That is the min fallacy with the objections to St. Anselm is that the objectors just but perfection onto a subject. In this manner, perfection is an attribute, so the subject cannot be defined by its attribute. However, in God’s case, there is not any attribute that defines him, only the essence of perfection. Therefore, St. Anselm’s argument is not fallacious.
God and perfection are one and the same. There cannot be a replica of St. Anselm’ s ontological argument using just any concept and adding the idea of perfection to it. The difference is that St. Anselm is analyzing God, who is supposed to be by definition- perfect. There is nothing in the definition of island that entails perfection. Furthermore, there is nothing in conceiving of perfection that entails that perfection exists. God is the exception because if he did not exist, then he would be less than perfect. This is why God’s essence actually dictates that he must exist, there is no other option for a perfect being.
St. Anselm uses the analogy of a painter who preconceives what he is going to paint: “For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his understanding what he has not yet…But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is” (Barnes). What St. Anselm is pointing out is that there are notions that define themselves, and that God’s notion is perfection. This is the difference between attributes and properties and essences. God is perfection. This means that they are one and the same.
One cannot say that God behaved in a perfect manner, because God is perfect. However, one can say that one can have a more perfect island, because it is better than others. There are not any other Gods to compare this perfect God with; however, there are many islands to compare the perfect island to. This point of comparison also proves God’s existence: There is no comparison. It is impossible to improve upon perfection, so unlike a more perfect island there could never be a more perfect God. That maximum is already reached by ho ontological definition.
The difference between God and an island is that God is not a physical thing that is open to imperfection. The definition of an island is that it exists, and the there are imperfections. These imperfections could be cold weather, or storms for instance. However, if Gaunilo’s argument is taken literally, then a perfect island would have none of those imperfections. This essay argues that islands that exist necessarily have imperfections, whereas God, who exists, necessarily does not have imperfections.
In conclusion, this essay argues that St. Anselm’s ontological argument is sound and valid. It avoids the pitfalls of most theological proofs which involve a leap of faith and a departure from logic. This argument is based simply on its terms and the logical reduction of those terms. There is not any confusion with Anselm when it comes to the term perfection and God. In fact, perhaps the term God could be replaced with Ultimate Perfect Being.
