Essay about St. Anselm of Canterbury

1110 Words5 Pages
In the following I intend to prove that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that God exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly why ‘The Ontological Argument’ is unsatisfactory. The Definition of ‘Greater’ St. Anselm of Canterbury defined God as “that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought” (Bailey, 2002). The problem with this definition is that the term ‘greater’ is surely up for interpretation. The term ‘greater’ requires a comparison between itself and one or more things, which could pose a problem for Anselm’s argument; however Professor Thorp states that the only difference between these two things is that one exists…show more content…
One person may perceive their ‘real beer’ as a Corona, a Molson or other, and still their ‘real beer’ is better than their ‘imaginary’ Corona or Molson or other. Whose beer is better is merely a preference and no amount of reasoning can safely or conclusively determine a ‘greater’ between the two. This is exactly the problem with Anslem’s ‘Ontological Argument’ and is sufficient in itself to prove that even with the accepted definition of God, “that-than-which-none-greater-can-be-thought” (Bailey, 2002), Anselm cannot prove that a God exists, but rather, that each individuals perceptions of their own God in their mind must exist.       With regards to the above objection, I do admit that I have not disproved Anselm’s argument to the point where I could say that his first two premises of his argument being true, that God doesn’t have to exist. My objection only stands to establish that Anselm has failed only to prove the existence of a single and only God in existence. He has not proved the existence of a God but of everyone’s personal view of God in their own minds. I believe my next objection causes more serious problems for Anselm’s Ontological argument. My second problem with Anselm’s Ontological argument resides once again in Anselm’s use of the word ‘Greater’ but this time in a very different context. In Anselm’s Argument, ‘Greater’ implies infinity. For
Open Document