St. Anselm's Argument For The Existence Of God

Argument For the Existence of God : A Critical Evaluation

There have been many theories for and against the existence of God. For example: the Faith- based Arguments, Pascal’s Wager, James’s Will to Believe, the Contingency Argument and

several more. The argument being analysed here however is Ontological argument given by St.

Anselm and its counter-argument.

In St. Anselm’s argument, God has been thought by the definition: ‘the entity (or being) than

which none greater can be conceived’ 1

in the human mind and does not depend upon the world and its existence in any way whatsoever.

He then goes on to state that an entity which exists both in reality and in mind is greater than an

entity existing only in the mind (other things remaining
● Another argument one can come up with is the existence of , say a person with all

the attributes and good qualities one can imagine, and then argue about his existence.

However, that point would not precisely show what is wrong with the Ontological

argument because St. Anselm’s argument also deals with what is non-physical. Hence

this point can not be used to disprove it.

St. Anselm’s argument is a posteriori argument. Just as a person can prove that a four-sided

triangle is absurd, so is the idea of an imperfect God.3

if God is non-existent, God is imperfect. This is not necessarily true. Hence the argument is an

unsound one.

Argument Against the Existence of God : A Critical Evaluation

Gasking put forward his own version of the Ontological argument, meant to disprove St.

Anselm’s argument. He stated that the greatness of an achievement is based on its quality and the

abilities and handicaps of the creator. If the greatest achievement is the creation of the universe,

in order for God to be the greatest being conceivable, God must have the greatest handicap,

which Gasking says is inexistence. Hence God does not exist.

Some debatable points
Just as in St Anselm’s argument, it was pointed out that existence is not

necessary for perfection, similarly non-existence need not even be a handicap. Although

one may argue that a painter without hands painting the Mona Lisa is more impressive

than Leonardo da Vinci, the important thing to be kept in mind is that in these arguments

we are dealing with a non-physical entity, whose disabilities need not be as obvious as for

the physical beings.

● Whether the disability of the creator affects the merit of the achievement depends on the

creation itself. For example, if a painter did not have legs, he could have as easily created

a painting which after all humans mostly use hands for. Similarly, if we do not know

what it takes for a non-physical being to create the universe, we can not claim for sure

which disability would make it the greatest achievement possible by ‘the greatest being

conceivable’.

● Another argument could be that we can not be certain that the greatest achievement

possible by the being is the creation of the universe.

Gasking’s argument in fact shows how St Anselm’s argument was unsound. Just as St Anselm

made the error of saying that existence is necessary for perfection, Gasking made an