Kai Galbiso

Shannon Atkinson
Phil. of Religion 2350
10/23/16
Anselms Ontological Argument
As one of the leading ontological arguments, Anselms is quite convincing. Ontology is
[1] a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being; [2] a particular
theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence (Webster Online
Dictionary). In easy terms: the study of being and the study of what exists. The ontological
argument is an argument for the existence of God that begins with the idea of supreme perfection
or unsurpassable greatness, which is exactly what Anselm tries to do (class notes, Handout 2).
The focus of this paper is to show the process of Anselms ontological argument, show a counter
argument, and persuade that the ontological argument is a convincing theory that can be
countered with a stalemate with the Parable of the Invisible Gardener.
St. Anselm created the first formulated ontological argument in the eleventh century.
Anselm was a Benedictine monk and a Archbishop of Canterbury
(www.philosophyofreligion.info). Anselms argument and main premise is that we conceive of
God as a being then which no greater can be conceived, (class notes, Handout 2). He believed
God to be the best possible thing that we could imagine. For example, try and think of the most
amazing, wonderful, loving, perfect, thing you can imagine. Anselm would always say that God
is greater. This first way out of the four is a bold and strong statement. It is Anselm claiming
that God does in fact exist.

He then goes to his second claim that, This greatest conceivable being exists in the mind
alone or in both mind and reality, (class notes, Handout 2). He is saying that there is two ways
in which something can exists, in just the mind, which would be imaginary such as a unicorn or a
imaginary friend. Or things can exist in the mind and reality, something that we can mentally
imagine but that is also real. Such as a horse, or a filet mignon steak.
This leads to Anselms third major point, that any good thing would be better if it existed
in our minds, as well as reality. His argument goes, [a] existing in both the mind and reality is
greater than existing in the mind alone. [b] This greatest conceivable being or God, existing in
the mind alone, can also be conceived in reality. [c] This greatest conceivable being or God,
existing in the mind alone is NOT, therefore the being then which no greater can be conceived (If
God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined). Therefore,
the greatest conceivable being does exist in the mind and reality, (class notes, Handout 2). To
simplify, if we define God as this greatest conceivable being that we can imagine, then the only
thing that would be greater than that, would be if God actually existed so therefore he exists.
Anselms ontological argument is actually very believable for it sounds very logical.
When walking through the steps of his process, it all makes logical sense, that , if all As are
Bs and all Bs are Cs, then all As are also Cs, (class notes, Handout 2). For
example, all bachelors are unmarried males.
Anselms ontological argument sounds good until a French monk by the name of Gaunilo
comes into play. Gaunilo is very important because he is responsible for one of the most
important criticisms of Anselm's argument. What Anselm tries to do with his ontological
argument is define something into existence, and one can simply not do that
(http://www.iep.utm.edu). Gaunilo saw this within Anselms argument and shows how Anselms

argument can be used to prove the existence of non-existence things. How Guanilo lays out his
refutation to Anselm:
1. Conceive the greatest imaginable island the universe has ever seen which no
greater can be conceived.
2. This greatest conceivable island exists in the mind alone, or in both mind and
reality.
3. [a] Having this greatest conceivable island existing in both the mind and in reality
is greater than existing in the mind alone. [b] This greatest conceivable island, existing in
the mind alone, can also be conceived to exist in reality. [c] This greatest conceivable
island existing in the mind alone is NOT, therefore the island then which no greater, can
be conceived.
4. Therefore, this greatest conceivable island can exist in the mind and in reality,
(class notes, Handout 2).
Gaunilos argument brings up the immediate criticism of the ontological argument.
However, notice that on Gaunilos first argument is not necessarily sound. The qualities that
make an island great are not the qualities that admit of conceptually maximal qualities,
(http://www.iep.utm.edu). No matter how amazing, extravagant, imaginable your island may be,
it will always be possible to imagine something that can make that island greater than the island
thought of before. Guanilo is saying that anyone can make the same kind of argument to prove
the existence of whatever one wants or desires most, however, it still doesnt make that thing
real. But that is where Anselm says that this argument only works for necessary beings, of which
there are only one, which is God (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmTsS5xFA6k).
Another famous rejection of Anselms ontological argument comes hundreds of years
later from a German philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant. Kants main point was,
existence is not a predicate, (class notes, Handout 2). A predicate is something that is said

about another object. And Kant criticizes Anselm in that thinking that existence is something
that can be predicated upon a thing, or be used as describing characteristic,
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmTsS5xFA6k). What he means: It is not a characteristic
that adds to your understanding, it is the positioning of that thing. It does not get any greater,
just by saying it exists. Nothing is added to my understanding by what a thing is by stating, it
exists. Existence is not a quality of it, it is a characteristic of the world. Whether it exists or not
is irrelevant - because Anselm is arguing the existence aspect (class notes, Handout 2).
For example, if a triangle exists, it necessarily has three sides. But it could be that no triangle
actually exists at all. Because the idea of existence is not a part of how we actually define
triangle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmTsS5xFA6k). Kant would also say that if God
does exist, then he would be the greatest being that we can imagine, however, it still doesnt
mean God exists. Kant argues that predicates add to the essence of their being but they cant
be used to prove existence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmTsS5xFA6k).
Gaunilos and Kants arguments both refute and bring up the problems within Anselms
ontological argument. The way I look at this is just how British philosopher John Wisdom
approaches it with The Parable of the Invisible Gardener. Here it is: Person A and Person B
go to a garden they haven't been to in awhile and realize that there are still some plants that are
blooming. Person A believes that a gardener must have been tending the garden while both
Person A and B were gone. Person B doubts that a gardener exists, so they both decide to camp
out at the garden to see if they can find this gardener. After some time goes by without seeing a
gardener, Person A says, the gardener must be invisible. Person A and B then proceed to place
traps in order detect and catch this invisible gardener. When the gardener is still not found,
Person A says, the gardener must be intangible as well as unsmellable. Person B then replies

with, What's the difference between an invisible, undetectable, intangible gardener and no
gardener at all? (http://www.dartmouthapologia.org).
In conclusion Anselms ontological argument is sound and logical. It is easily
comprehensible when following the steps and easy to abide by; however, Gaunilo and Kant both
bring up strong criticism for Anselms argument. Gaunilo shows how Anselms argument is
flawed when he replaces greatest conceivable being with greatest conceivable island. He
says that anyone can make the same kind of argument to prove the existence of whatever one
wants or desires most, however, it still doesnt make that thing real. Kant finds the flaws
within Anselms argument and states, existence is not a predicate. It is not a characteristic that
adds to your understanding, it is the positioning of that thing. It does not get any greater, just by
saying it exists. All sides of argument have great thought and sound logical, however, I find that
the ontological arguments are best described by The Parable of the Invisible Gardener. That until
we simply have more information one can and cannot infer whether or not God actually exists.

Works Cited
"Anselm and the Argument for God: Crash Course Philosophy ..." Youtube. N.p., 4 Apr. 2016. Web.
24 Oct. 2016.
"Anselm: Ontological Argument for the Gods Existence ..." Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2016.
Atkinson, Shannon. Phil. of Religion, Handout #1. 2016

Atkinson, Shannon. Phil. of Religion, Handout #2. 2016

"Ontology | Definition of Ontology by Merriam-Webster." Merriam Webster. N.p., n.d. Web. 24
Oct. 2016.
Parable Of The Invisible Gardener | | Apologia." The Dartmouth Apologia A Journal of
Christian Thought. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.
"Philosophy of Religion The Ontological Argument." Philosophy of Religion. N.p., n.d. Web.
24 Oct. 2016.