PHILOSOPHY PAPER

Kotara 5

The argument of whether God exists or not has been around for centuries. One philosopher, Anselm, came up with an argument for why god does in fact exist. Anselm’s argument for god existing is “God is that than which no greater can be conceived, God must exist,” (The Great Conversation, pp. 259-263). However, Anselm’s argument is flawed. I will be discussing the type of argument that Anselm brings forth that points out one of the two flaws in the argument, as to what Anselm means by ‘that than which no greater can be conceived,’ (TGC, pp. 260), the second flaw with the word “is” and then why he thinks god’s existence is a result. I will then follow with my stance on the argument and why I believe it is flawed.

Anselm’s argument for God’s existence is called an ontological argument. Ontological originates from the Greek word being (TGC, pp.260), and implies that the being in question (i.e. God) exists. According to Norman Melchert, (author of ‘The Greatest Conversation’) he mentions in the cliff-notes that it is “…important to distinguish two, or even more, distinct arguments because at least one form of the argument is pretty obviously invalid,” (TGC, pp. 260). Melchert points out that Anselm fails to do this entirely. Although, one could point out that Anselm does have two arguments, by saying that Anselm makes his first statement, “God is that than which no greater can be conceived,” then separates his conclusion “God must exist,” by making a separate statement, disguising the conclusion as the second argument. However, this does not follow the guidelines for an ontological argument, so the counter argument in question is invalid. As a result we have identified one flaw in Anselm’s argument for God existing.

Anselm’s statement ‘that than which no greater can be conceived,’ (TGC, pp.260), is a confusing one at that. I will break it down into four parts. One; you have an idea of God in your mind. Two; God is the best thing we can possibly imagine within the limits of our minds. Three; existence is greater than non-existence. And four; therefore God must exist. According in the video “Anselm and the Argument for God”, there are only two ways something can exist. “Something can exist in your mind and be strictly imaginary” & “it can exist in our minds, but also in reality,” (video). Going back to the first point, our idea of God can exist in our minds because we have an idea of God, but because we cannot see him physically, in reality, does that not prove further that he does not exist? According to Anselm just because we cannot see him physically in our reality, this does not rule out that he does not exist. One can compare this to the idea that we tell children about Santa Claus in order to make them behave; just because you cannot see Santa does not mean he is not watching you when you misbehave. Like the Santa idea, Anselm’s theory relies solely on the idea that because “we define God as the greatest thing that we can conjure up in our minds [tying back to part two], the only thing that could possibly be greater than him would be a real version [tying back to part three],” (video). Therefore, [part four] God must exist.

Anselm’s argument comes off as pretty solid, but when we add the first two words “God is” back into the argument, it immediately falls apart. By saying “God is” the word “is” implies that God already exists. This is a very big fallacy (a flaw that weakens an argument) in Anselm’s argument. One cannot prove their argument is correct by using the very thing you are trying to prove in your argument (Video). That would be like saying I know Santa Claus is real because I can imagine him in my mind, so because I can imagine Santa Claus he must be real. By using the word is, you have already assumed that Santa Claus is real. This major flaw in Anselm’s argument leaves his statement “God is that than which no greater can be conceived,” (TGC, p.260), invalid. Although someone who does believe in God can argue that if one has an endless amount of faith, (faith being that they believe in God even when they have no solid proof), God must exist because they have faith that he does exist. One can then point out that having faith is not enough proof because to philosophers they do not care about faith (Video). In addition to that, the argument has nothing to back itself up with, which immediately the argument falls apart.

I will now give my reasoning for why I think Anselm’s argument is not a solid argument for why God exists. I found Anselm’s reasoning for his argument to be very farfetched. Yes, no one can disprove that God does exist, (this has been going on for centuries) but assuming that one can just come up with a theory based on the fact that because you have an idea of God, he must exist is just really hard for me to believe. Mainly because of the fact that there is no physical evidence to help support these claims. My other reason as to why I disagree with Anselm’s argument, is Anselm is trying to prove the existence of just the one God that he himself believes in. The fact that one has to prove that something, exists especially when it comes to religion, gives me the idea that maybe they do not truly believe in their religion since they are trying to prove to other people that their God exists. It should not matter if someone else questions your belief in a higher being; if you believe in your God, then that is all that should matter at the end of the day.

In conclusion, the debate of whether or not God exists will be a problem that may never get solved. Anselm’s argument “God is that than which no greater can be conceived,” (TGC, p.260), seems like a solid stance, but it has flaws that bring his argument to a hault. These flaws are, his lack of following the guidelines with ontological arguments, his points not being coherent, and his use of the word “is” stating that he already knows God exists by saying he exists. As a result we know that Anselm’s argument for God existing is flawed and cannot prove that God exists.

Works Cited

Anselm and the Argument for God. , YouTube, 2016. Accessed 20 Mar. 2017.

Melchert, Norman. The Great Conversation A Historical Introduction To Philosophy. Seventh ed., New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 259-63.