Janae Smith

TA Quincy Faircloth

September 29, 2010

Ontological Argument; Sound

The ontological argument by Anselm states:

Premise One: God by definition is the most perfect being.

Premise Two: It is better to exist in reality than in the mind alone.

Conclusion: God exists in reality.

For an argument to be sound, all the premises are true as well as the conclusion. For this

deductive argument my view is that Anselm’s argument is sound and I believe this because the

intricacies and beauty of earthly beings cannot exist in reality if there was not a more perfect

being creating them to begin with.

Premise one is proven to be true. For example, the complexity of our planet alone points

to a deliberate designer who created such a flawless universe, hence God. The size of Earth is

perfect in a sense that if it were even a little bit smaller it would not be able to sustain an

atmosphere. Due to the atmosphere earth can allow plants, animals, and human life in which no

other planet can. Also, Earth is the exact distance, to the fraction, away from the sun to keep life

from freezing or burning; any other distance would make life impossible. Thus concluding that

this perfect universe is only in existence from there being a perfect designer, God: who creates

all things from nothing.

Further support for this claim comes from the fact that if God exists; he exists

necessarily; meaning in all reality. God being defined as the most perfect being means that he

would have the greatest possible perfection of existence. Since this statement is true by
definition, it holds true in all possible worlds therefore leading to the conclusion that God exists

in reality; affirming the truth of the conclusion. Someone who doubts God’s existence at least

knows what God is, the greatest thing to be conceived. By doubting that they are saying that

there is something greater than God which is a contradiction of the definition of God, thus cannot

be true.

On the other hand, the most basic criticism against the ontological argument is that

Anselm cannot prove existence without any reference to the world especially since it is classified

as a priorie; meaning not based on experience. “One cannot infer the extramental existence of

anything by analyzing its definition”-Encarta. Kant states that existence is not a property.

Further stating, existence cannot be associated with a definition. He explains that anything can

exist using the method of definitions.

Some argue that if God is said to have perfect power can he create a round square? In

which I, a believer of God’s existence in reality, would respond in such a way that God is

omnipotent to the greatest possible magnitude. God cannot do what is rationally impossible but

he can do anything that can be done.

Guanilo, one who believes Anselm merely defined God into existence, had a fallacious

argument himself for the conclusion. For example, Guanilo states that the ontological argument

is equivalent to there being a lusciously rich ‘lost island’ that is impossible to reach but full of

unlimited wealth and delicacies. Just because Guanilo was told about the lost island and

understands the idea of it, does not mean it automatically exists in reality. If the island was not

shown as a real and unquestionable fact, then the existence of the island in reality is uncertain to

one’s understanding.
 I will oppose Guanilo’s claim by stating that if God exists in the understanding alone:

then he can be perceived to exist in reality, which is immensely greater. “God cannot be

conceived not to exist—God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived.—that which

can be conceived not to exist is not God.” Anselm states in chapter three.

The ontological argument stated by Anselm contains two true premises and a true

conclusion thus defined as a sound argument. If God was not the most perfect being, there

would be no such thing as the perfect universe in which we breathe this perfect air. Creating

such perfection from nothing leads to nothing greater being able to be conceived; hence God. It

is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, but a completely different concept to

understand the object that exists necessarily; meaning in all reality. Sure, there might be people

such as Kant and Gaunilo who oppose Anselm’s argument, but the evidence to support God’s

existence in reality is of infinite sum. I strongly believe in this ontological argument’s validity

and pray for those who are against it only to hope they will one day come to realization.