St. Anselm was born in Aosta in Italy and was the Archbishop of Canterbury. His most famous works include his Monologion and Prosologion. St. Anselm is most famous for his Ontological argument for God’s existence.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

St. Anselm’s Ontological argument is an attempt to establish God’s existence without the need for observations of the world around us. Anselm believes that the conclusion that God exists can be found using only a priori and necessary premises.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ATGUMENTSt. Anselm’s argument goes as follows:

1. “Now we believe that you (God) are something than which nothing greater can be thought”

No. 1 is Anselm’s claim that there is no being greater than God in our understanding.

2. “And surely that –than-which-nothing-greater-cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists in the solely in the mind even, it can be though to exist in reality also, which is greater.”

No. 2 this is Anselm’s claim that since to exist in both the understanding and reality is greater than to exist in the understanding alone.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTIf God only existed in the understanding, a

greater being could be thought of, one the exists in the understanding as well as in reality.

3. Given that God is a being which nothing greater can be conceived (1) and a being which exists in reality and the understanding is greater than a being which exists in the understanding alone (2), it should follow that God exists both in reality and in our understanding.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT1. God is a being which nothing greater can

be conceived2. God either exists in the understanding or

both the understanding and reality3. Given 1, it follows that God cannot merely

exist in the understanding alone4. Since God cannot exist in the

understanding alone, it must follow that he exists both in the understanding and in reality

5. THEREFORE GOD EXISTS IN REALITY.

Gaunilo’s ObjectionGaunilo parodied Anselm’s Ontological

argument using his example of a Perfect island.

“When someone tells me that there is such an island, I easily understand what is being said, for there is nothing difficult here. Suppose however, as a consequence of this, he then goes on to say: you cannot doubt that this island, more excellent than all lands, actually exists somewhere in reality, because it undoubtedly stands in relation to your understanding. Since it is more excellent, not simply to stand in relation to the understanding, but to be in reality as well, therefore this island must necessarily be in reality.

GAUNILO’S OBJECTIONGaunilo here is using the same reasoning as

Anselm to establish that there is a Perfect Island, which is absurd since no actual island exists in reality.

Since we are able to conceive a perfect island with all these attributes in our mind, does that not mean that there is indeed a perfect island in both our understanding and in reality?

ANSELM’S REPLY TO GAUNILOAnselm says that the case of the Perfect

Island differs from his Ontological argument because God is far greater than a perfect island.

God is infinite and all his qualities are maximal while the island is merely finite and the qualities that make it a perfect island are not maximal because the island is finite.

END