The existence of an all supreme God has always been a matter of philosophical and theological contention among believers and non-believers alike. One of the major proponents of the existence of God is St. Anselm in his ontological argument. This philosophical approach advances a logical explanation on the existence of a God although major criticisms have been targeted at the classical version as well as the second reply argument (Lowe, 2013). In this paper, an evaluation of St. Anselm's argument, as well as the accompanying objections, is demonstrated with a particular emphasis on the persuasiveness brought out in the light of counterarguments.
St. Anselm's prior argument is based on logical concepts as opposed to empirical evidence on proving the existence of God. He, therefore, employs a 'reductio ad absurdum' approach where logical premises are evaluated on the basis of contradiction. In his first proposition, Anselm asserts that even a rational atheist acknowledges the existence of God in the understanding through an appreciation of the claims although they might not believe it . In this statement, God is understood as a supreme being upon which no greater being can be conceived (Eder " Ramharter, 2015). In this way, even atheists understand the idea of such a being in their thought and thus the argument is taken as a universal truth.
In the second argument, St. Anselm argues his first premise that existence in understanding is inferior to reality. In this way, a being that exists, in reality, is greater than a conception in the mind. This premise demarcates the distinction between the existence of God in reality versus an understanding in an attempt to eventually prove a real existence. He further premises that it is conceivable that God exists in the reality as well (Logan, 2016).
From the first and the second premise, it, therefore, follows that God would have been greater than he is if he really existed which compromises the definition of God. From the definition, God is the greatest being above which nothing greater can be conceived. In this way, if God really existed then there would be a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived (Eder " Ramharter, 2015).
Moreover, it is contradictory that a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived may exist. Additionally, it is inconceivable that God exists only in imagination as St. Anselm puts it in his flow of logic. Therefore, it is untrue that God only exists in the understanding but not in the reality since from the argument if he exists in the thought then he also exists in the reality. Furthermore, since even a fool or a rational atheist acknowledges the existence of God in the mind, then it follows that God also exists in reality (Eder " Ramharter, 2015).
In essence, St. Anselm's classic argument attempts to construct the existence of God through conceptual truths and definition of God away from empirical proof. From the established premises, it is absurd that a being can be conceived as greater than it is and since God is understood as the greatest being then it follows that he exists in reality (Lowe, 2013). Whereas the definition may not be contentious, numerous objections and criticisms have been aimed at the argument's premises and logic. Some common criticisms have been advanced by Guanilo and Aquinas, as well as some fundamental Kantian criticism. However, despite the many critics, the argument stands out as a popular explanation of Gods existence since its advancement in the St. Anselm's prologue.
Firstly, Guanilo stands out as a prime critic of the claims by St. Anselm's on the reality of God's existence. Guanilo is heavily objected to what he terms as the unreasonable definition of an idea into being. According to his perspective, the ontological argument is illegitimate in its movement from premises to conclusions and can be misused to prove the existence of various non-existent things (Logan, 2016). Such a case is proven through a demonstrative idea of the existence of a Piland.
In his demonstration, Guanilo posits that a Piland is a great island from which none bigger can be conceived. From this conceptual truth, he goes on to argue that a Piland exists in the mind as an idea and that if it really exists then it would be greater as both a reality and an idea as compared to only an idea. His arguments further align with Anselm's argument in demonstrating that if the Piland only existed in the mind, then it was possible to envision a greater island and as such it exists in reality. From these deductions, he therefore successfully argues the existence of the Piland although it is common knowledge that no such island exists in reality. In this way, he convincingly concludes that St. Anselm's argument is not philosophically feasible.
However, this criticism brings out one important aspect of the classical argument regarding the reference to magnitudes that lack maximal qualities (Logan, 2016). The establishment of an intrinsic maximum on the referenced qualities plays a big role in the success of the argument. Evidently, Guanilo's objection is primarily incoherent mainly due to the inclusion of a quality that lacks a quantifiable maximum. The lack of an intrinsic maximum in the size of an island disqualifies a primary premise since a bigger island can be visualized no matter the size of the Piland.
Interestingly, this revelation brings a subsequent questioning of the legitimacy of St. Anselm's argument since it is not clear whether the qualities, properties and concepts of God can be maximally quantified (Eder " Ramharter, 2015). Therefore, coherency, omniscience, omnipotent, and perfection must conform to a maxima threshold as demonstrated by the critique.
Other objections to St. Anselm's argument include the St. Aquinas and Kant's criticisms. According to Aquinas, the existence of God cannot be solely based on the definition and concept of God since different people perceive the idea differently. He argues that it is self-evident that God exists and that the arguments can only be coherent among people who hold a similar definition as St. Anselm. Additionally, he contends that even if the idea is shared among people the meaning of the actual existence is not well understood among all (Logan, 2016). However, this criticism can be refuted since the argument can omit the definition of God and still accomplish the ultimate objective.
Also, the Kant's criticism refutes the assertion that real existence is a mark of perfection. Accordingly, it is highly queer that the greatness of an object is increased through its existence as postulated by St. Anselm. The contention, therefore, faults this fundamental premise of the argument which affects the final conclusion on the existence of God.
However, St. Anselm offers an additional version to the classical arguments that seek to address these objections. In this second version, he seeks to evade the highly contentious assertion that existence can be regarded as a property through a similar ontological argument. Although he still relies on the initial definition of God he evades the claim of existence as a perfection but instead posits that perfection can be derived from necessary perfection. In this way, he claims that a being whose existence is of necessity surpasses in greatness a being which has no necessity to exist. He further puts the logical possibility of a being to exist as a measure of greatness where a logically possible existence is greater (Eder " Ramharter, 2015).
However, this argument is not convincing enough although it serves a good response to the Kantian criticisms of the classical argument. On Guanilos contention the rejoinder does not show how the qualities of God are intrinsic maximums especially under a possibility of other worlds. Also, the critique by Immanuel Kant on the basis of 'pure reason' has not been satisfactorily addressed in this response. This is because St. Anselm does not clearly show how existence is attributable to perfection. In this way, the argument fails in certain aspects of critical response although it undoubtedly provides a compelling proposition on the existence of God.
In conclusion, the St. Ansem's argument on the real existence of an all-powerful God is an arguably convincing proposition to the highly contentious debate on the matter. Despite the numerous objections and criticism from Guanilo, Immanuel Kant and St. Aquinas, among others the argument stands as a prime contributor to the explanation of the existence of God. It is however important for the philosophical thought to be probed and developed further to develop a more convincing explanation as to the real existence of God.
References
Eder, G., " Ramharter, E. (2015). Formal reconstructions of St. Anselm’s ontological argument. Synthese, 192(9), 2795-2825.
Logan, I. (2016). Reading Anselm's Proslogion: The History of Anselm's Argument and Its Significance Today. Routledge.
Lowe, E. J. (2013). The ontological argument. In Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion (pp. 413-422). Routledge.
