Several centuries ago, St. Anselm wrote a prayer titled Proslogion. One of the key and thought-provoking aspects of this prayer is St. Anselm’s attempt to prove that God exists. Indeed, the prayer is comparable to Descartes’ argument because it results from an understanding of God’s perfection. Descartes maintained that God must certainly exist due to the fact that he could clearly perceive God and His perfection is such that Descartes could not have devised it on his own. St. Anselm’s argument is similar to that of Descartes because it has the properties of a priori argument. Such arguments do not rely on premises that are based on the day to day experiences of the world. Their validity or truthfulness can be proved without such experiences. We only need to clearly conceive the proposition to prove that it is true. An analysis of St. Anselm’s work reveals that God exists and He is a reality that cannot be overlooked (“IEP” par. 10)
God is being. He also happens to be the greatest possible being that one can think of in the world. That means that there is no other being that is greater than this God. He is also present as an idea in people’s mind. These two properties make God superior to any other being. Hence, if God is present as an idea in people’s minds, then, it is possible that there exists another God who is superior to Him. Nevertheless, it is not possible to visualize something that can be greater than God as it will be irrational to suggest that there can be another greater supernatural being that is greater than the Almighty God. As a result, the existence of God is real and unquestionable (“IEP” par. 12).
Some individuals might object to St. Anselm’s arguments and assert that some of its fundamental tenets are flawed. If there is nothing wrong with the argument, we can, therefore, employ reasoning to evaluate an argument or aspect that we do not need to treat as factual. For instance, we can come up with an argument, which is similar to the philosophical case that purposes to demonstrate the actuality of an impeccable island. The impeccable landmass ought to exist, because in case it is not real, then, one can think of a greater island over which no other island exists and this could be unreasonable. If the philosophical debate on God’s presence is held to be true, then the case for the existence of an impeccable island must also be true. The two cases assume similar logical forms; therefore, they are either true or false (“IEP” par. 12).
You might also oppose St. Anselm’s opinion on the presence of God based on the argument that the opinion is founded on the conclusion that a God that exists is greater than a non-existent God, and, therefore, it rests on misperception. Existence is not an aspect that a being can lack or possess. When Anselm argues that God exists, he is not declaring that there is a God who has the property of actuality. If this is the case, then when people argue that God does not exist, they would mean that there is a God, but he does not have the property of actuality or existence. As a result, they would be denying as well as affirming the existence of God in the same sentence. Therefore, something exists if its concept is represented in the real world and not by possession of a property (“IEP” par. 12).
In response to the first objection, there is a problem with respect to the impeccable island. An impeccable island, probably, is one that has a lot of good-looking vegetation and unblemished coastlines. If an island has most of these elements, it is considered great. Nevertheless, there is a standard definition for the inherent maximum number of beautiful vegetation or coastlines that a given island should contain. The definition bases on the fact that for each island that one can think of, there is always a better island with more remarkable vegetation and coastlines. Therefore, it is not possible to think of an island that is better than all other islands. The idea of the impeccable island is, therefore, illogical and unrealistic. Such an island does not exist in this world. Conversely, the idea of an impeccable God is somewhat rational. Control and understanding, as well as other abilities that God is thought to possess, have limits that cannot be exceeded. Consequently, the distinction between the objection and Anselm’s idea of God’s existence is real. This distinction further provides the ground for rejecting the argument on the impeccable island without necessarily rejecting the philosophical argument on the existence of God (“UKY” par. 9).
In response to the second objection, some flaws are evident in regards to the argument. For instance, arguing that something exists can alter the way people perceive it. When one reads a book about an individual and realize that they are a real historic figure who exists, such a discovery will change their perception about them. Likewise, asserting that God is not a mere fabrication of believers’ thoughts, but an existing phenomenon enhances the concept of God. Conceivably, Anselm’s comparison between an existing and a non-existent God is realistic; therefore, the ontological argument about God’s existence survives this objection (“UKY” par. 9).
Ontological arguments are theoretical in a number of ways. For instance, the same way propositions on the concept of a bachelor suggest that every bachelor is male, the suggestions instituting the concept of God, concurring with the ontological argument, suggest the existence of God. The difference between the two is that the concept of a bachelor overtly comprises of the proposition that bachelors are not married, but the concept of God does not comprise outright suggestions affirming the actuality of such a being. Nonetheless, the basic thought is the same. The philosophical perspectives attempts to prove that one can infer the presence of the Supreme Being, as it seems, the real description of God. It remains important to reflect for a while on what an extraordinary undertaking it is to infer existence of God from the actual definition of God. Typically, existential assertions do not follow from the theoretical assertions. If one wants to prove that bachelors, viruses and so on exist, it is not sufficient to just mirror on the concepts (“Princeton” par. 11).
In sum, God exists. He is a supreme being whose no other being is superior. This is attested to by the fact that he is present as an impression in mind as well as in actuality. Therefore, it is not possible to think of something greater than God as this would appear to differ with the suggestion that we cannot think of something greater than the utmost possible being that one can think of. Moreover, comparison of the concept of existence of God and that of the impeccable or perfect island is illogical. For any impeccable island that can be thought of, there can be another better island. Contrariwise, all the potentials that God possesses cannot be surpassed once a given limit is reached. Based on this argument, we can scrap the concept of the impeccable island in favour of the concept of God. Furthermore, based on the above analysis, St. Anselm’s comparison between an existing and in existing God is possible, and therefore it survives the second objection.
Works Cited
Dunn, Stephen. “A Critique of Anselm’s Ontological Proof.” Philosophicaugustine.
Philosophy for Understanding Theology. July 17, 2013. Web. January 27, 2017.
IEP. “Anselm: Ontological Arguments for God’s Existence.” Iep. Internet Encyclopaedia of.
Philosophy. March 28,2012. Web. January 16, 2017
Princeton. “Anselm and the Ontological Arguments.” Princeton. Princeton University. May 2,
2014. Web. January 16, 2017
UKY. “Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.” Uky . UKY Edu. May 28,
2013. Web. January 16, 2017
