My Objections To Anselm's Ontological Argument example essay topic

In the following I intend to prove that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that God exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly why 'The Ontological Argument' is unsatisfactory. The Definition of 'Greater's t. Anselm of Canterbury defined God as "that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought" (Bailey, 2002).

The problem with this definition is that the term 'greater' is surely up for interpretation. The term 'greater' requires a comparison between itself and one or more things, which could pose a problem for Anselm's argument; however Professor Thorp states that the only difference between these two things is that one exists in the mind, while the other exists in the mind and in reality. If we understand that a God that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than one that merely exists in the mind then we must understand that God exists. We need to examine this, however, much more closely to discover the problem with this statement; and I will do so using an example given to us by Professor Thorp.

During the discussion of the Ontological argument, the professor asked us whether we would prefer 'a real beer' on a hot day, or 'an imaginary beer'. The real one is preferable and it is greater than the imaginary one. But what type of beer was each person in the class imagining? There are multiple brands of beer available and it is quite possible that many people throughout the room were picturing a different beer. Which real beer was greater? This is not a question that I can answer because it lies in a matter of preference.

We experience a similar problem when we think of 'a real God', and 'an imaginary God'. Perhaps I perceive God in a specific way, and to me, he is a being "that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought" (Bailey, 2002). This proves that my perception of God exists for me, but what of everyone else's perceptions of God? We must recognize a problem with this, in that everyone may perceive a 'greater' God in a very different way. We know that there are different perceptions of the 'greater' God because we have evidence of it in the various religions and the contrasting views of their God.

With this in mind, all Anselm is able to prove with his argument is that every person's individual perception of God does exist, but no one God. If Anselm's argument were true, it would also hold true that there would be as many different Gods in existence, as there are people who understand God and the definition of Him. One person may perceive their 'real beer' as a Corona, a Molson or other, and still their 'real beer' is better than their 'imaginary' Corona or Molson or other. Whose beer is better is merely a preference and no amount of reasoning can safely or conclusively determine a 'greater' between the two. This is exactly the problem with Anslem's 'Ontological Argument' and is sufficient in itself to prove that even with the accepted definition of God, "that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought" (Bailey, 2002), Anselm cannot prove that a God exists, but rather, that each individuals perceptions of their own God in their mind must exist. With regards to the above objection, I do admit that I have not disproved Anselm's argument to the point where I could say that his first two premises of his argument being true, that God doesn't have to exist.

My objection only stands to establish that Anselm has failed only to prove the existence of a single and only God in existence. He has not proved the existence of a God but of everyone's personal view of God in their own minds. I believe my next objection causes more serious problems for Anselm's Ontological argument. My second problem with Anselm's Ontological argument resides once again in Anselm's use of the word 'Greater' but this time in a very different context.

In Anselm's Argument, 'Greater' implies infinity. For my next objection to Anselm's argument, I will first have to prove that the use of the word 'Greater' in Anselm's argument implies an infinite greatness. Anselm's definition once again "that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought" (Bailey, 2002) allows us to imagine anything so great and yet there is still a greater (that being God). Once we imagine something greater than that which precedes it, it will then be possible to imagine something even greater, in an infinite trend that follows as such.

There are an infinite number of great and then greater things yet God is incomparably greater. God is infinite in that to attain the given title "that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought" (Bailey, 2002) he would have to reach perfection, as otherwise we would be able to imagine something greater. In every possible way God would have to be perfect, and all-powerful; infinite in every way. God as an infinite entity poses a problem for Anselm's argument. It seems that as human beings, we are able to define infinite: immeasurable and unlimited, however we cannot comprehend infinite. Human beings cannot understand something that does not have an end, as in our world; everything has finite laws applied to it.

Infinity is not within the grasp of the intellect; we cannot picture it and thus we cannot imagine it. God is infinite, and while we may be able to define him with Anselm's definition, we cannot comprehend or imagine Him. Because of this, God cannot be 'thought', he can merely be defined as infinite. Since we cannot comprehend God in our thought, he no longer exists in our minds as an entity, but merely as a definition. Thus, since he no longer exists in our minds, there is no obligation to understand that he must exist in reality; an implication made in Anselm's argument.

Anselm's Ontological argument is insufficient in proving that God exists. For the reasons above and further objections from various philosophers, I do not believe that Anselm can argue the existence of God with his current premises as they stand. I must say that despite my objections to Anselm's Ontological argument, I respect his work done, and the tremendous thought process that must have occurred to conjure up such a case as was presented. It is definitely much easier to prove a mortal wrong than it is to prove the existence of something so great and so unknown. Anselm's Ontological argument while intriguing does have some problems in my opinion that take away from its validity; but needless to say it is in and of itself quite astounding.