Several theories and arguments have been put forth about the existence of God. There are arguments that try to prove the fact that God exists and there are those that disregard his existence. Some of those arguments include the ontological, cosmological and teleological. This essay will explore and analyze arguments concerning the existence of God using the ontological argument as propagated by Saint Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. According to this argument, it is self contradictory to deny the fact that there exists a greater being. The truth is, according to the argument, that the greater being exists and the being is the God of Traditional Western Theism (Shofner 121). There is no evidence that supports this fact but then life may not have been there in the first place if there was no God. According to the ontological perspective, the existence of God can be deduced from the very definition of God.
There is the concept of the existence of a perfect being and he exists because he is a greater being than anything else that can be conceived. With such an argument, Anselm goes on to say that God exists in reality than in the understanding of him alone. This means that the perfect being exists in the mind and if this is the case, this being must be in existence in reality. In fact he got more support from Descartes who also argues about the existence of the superior being (IEP 4). The ontological argument therefore seeks to explain the existence of God from one just conceiving their idea in their minds and than making the idea a reality by acknowledging the fact that God really does exist.
In as much as he tried to defend his argument there came up a number of critics who did not agree with him one bit. One example of such critics is his contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutier the monk. He is the one who used the analogy of a perfect island therefore making the ontological argument look like it could support anything that is conceivable in the mind. This turns out that the argument becomes very controversial because ideally it lacks objectivity to say the least in its interpretation and even understanding. The entire concept is meant to define who God is but then it ends up creating holes that fail to be filled up when one gets down to evaluating the concept in totality. But having said this for its general purposes, the ontological argument is unrestricted and is open to interpretation but then, it assumes a mathematical interest.
Out of the argument arise some thoughts on how imagination works. Imagination can give rise to all sorts of ideas but then this does not make these imaginations true. But then Anselm stands firm in defending his arguments by saying that God is not a contingent being but rather to necessary beings which his argument is supporting. This means that God is not a contingent thing and is greater than that; otherwise he would not have been God if that were the case. He went ahead to say that God was only Contingent when it came to his existence because there was nothing that was greater than his existence. This whole argument points to the fact that it is necessary for God to exist because he surely had to exist. In this regard, nothing greater can be conceived apart from God.
There are very many other arguments that support this idea. For instance, the existence of perfect food or a perfect island could help explain the fact that there is a perfect being. The argument therein states that there exists a perfect relationship in fields such as logic, mathematics and sciences. With such a counter argument, it means that there is reasoning beyond the understanding alone. The reality of matters should also be considered. It is even faulty to claim that existence is one of God’s attributes because, in his view, existence was better than non existence (Jordan, Lockyer & Tate 27). This is not a logical explanation because it fails to explain whether such attributes are enough to prove a fact. And that if he was non- existent, and then he had to be inferior. If he was inferior, then something superior to him would be conceived. The circle then goes round and round therefore making it sound fallacious.
I believe Anselm’s argument just goes round in circles. Mere thinking or conceiving thoughts is not enough proof that a super being exists because this amounts to speculation. The ontological argument rules out the fact that imaginations exist and that a person lacks the power to imagine things that are non existence. This leads to the question why his argument on thinking only applies to the existence of God and nothing else. Just because a person thinks or understands that there exists God does not make the argument credible. The argument that Anselm propagates is the same argument as with the perfect island one and this makes it doubtful and does not hold water.
Works Cited
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). Anselm: Ontological Argument for God’s Existence. www.iep.utm.edu. Web, Retrieved on 28th February 2014. http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont arg/
Jordan, Anne,. Lockyer, Neil, & Tate, Edwin. Philosophy of Religion. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. 1999.
Shofner, Robert. Anselm Revisited: A Study on the Role of the Ontological Argument in the Writings of Karl Barth and Charles Hartshorne. Leiden: Brill. 1974
