Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
St. Anselm, a Benedictine monk, archbishop of Canterbury, and Doctor of the Church, is famed for being the originator of an ontological argument for the existence of God. He formulated the argument in 1078 and in it he utilizes a priori reasoning as a means of demonstrating that God’s existence is necessarily true and inevitable. Anselm believed that it was necessarily true that God, as a being whom nothing greater could be conceived, must necessarily exist in reality.
Anselm opens his argument by stating that God is a being who, “than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm, Proslogion, 2). This idea of ‘God’, who is greater than which nothing greater can be conceived, does not exist solely within the mind, but instead is logically superior to any being that can be imagined by a person’s thought process. Further reasoning reveals that, were God to exist only in the mind and not in reality, then a greater being could be conceptually constructed, namely one that exists both in the mind and in reality. This being would necessarily be superior, as it exists both in thought and in reality. The only way, therefor, that one can ensure the existence of only one all-powerful being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived is if one is to conceptually construct a being that inherently must exist within reality.
Anselm then takes his argument one step further as he states, “ So, even the fool is compelled to admit that something than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in his understanding at least” (Anselm, Proslogion, 2). He believes that any individual, no matter how foolish or misinformed, is capable of recognizing that a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived, or God, exists at least within the confines of one’s thoughts. This being within the mind of a foolish man is dumb and silent, unable to be spoken from his mouth. Anselm argues, however, that it is absurd to state that such a being exists solely within the confines of a mind, for existing solely in the realm of one’s thoughts does not necessarily equate to existing within reality. If one is to ensure the existence of a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived, then this being must necessarily exist within reality – outside the realm of the mind.
Anselm recognizes this and agrees that, if the argument is to progress, then one must go beyond the boundaries of human capabilities and human reasoning to that which is exterior to the individual and its thoughts – the realm of reality. He states, “For, it is certain that that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it existed in the understanding alone: then it could be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Hence, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible” (Anselm, Proslogion, 2). From this reasoning, Anselm deduces that if a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived were to exist solely within the mind, then it would be possible to conceive of a greater being, one that exists both in the mind and in reality. Furthermore, such a conception of a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived is simply impossible.
Consequently, it follows that if the idea of the infinite being, greater than which nothing greater can be conceived, is to have any reality, this being must exist not only conceptually in the mind, but also necessarily within the actual realm of reality. Thus, Anselm claims that the being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality, to ensure the realization of such a being. He states, “Therefore there is no doubt that there actually exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality” (Anselm, Proslogion, 2). As such, this argument provides a necessary and universal distinction between a concept and an object – the concept of the being in question may be existing in the mind, without a need for it to necessarily exist within reality, whereas an object must exist in the actual realm of reality, outside of the individual’s thoughts, for it to be considered real.
From Anselm’s argument, one does not necessarily claim that an infinite being is anything like the God of Christian theology – such as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or all-knowing. What the argument does do, however, is provide a necessary logical conclusion, which reveals that there must necessarily exist a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived, within the bounds of the actual realm of reality. As such, this argument provides a basis for further exploration into the properties of such a being, and its relationship, in whatever capacity, to the Christian concept of God.
In conclusion, Anselm’s ontological argument provides an a priori demonstration of the necessary existence of a being greater than which nothing greater can be conceived. By utilizing an analytic deductive reasoning technique, Anselm logically described the need for a being that exists outside the confines of the individual’s mind, in order to ensure the existence of no greater being than the one proposed. This argument provides a platform for further inquiry into the properties, if any, of such an entity and its possible correlation to the concept of God in Christian theology.
