Despite creating a new form of proof for the existence of God, Saint Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument fails in its goal. This paper begins by summarizing the axioms and steps of Anselm’s argument. I then forward my own critique of the ontological argument, based on following his definition of understanding to its logical consequence. After objecting to his argument, I propose a possible resolution on behalf of Anselm, followed by a critique of the resolution.
Anselm’s argument relies on proving a simple statement then contradicting it to show that its greater must exist, i.e. God. Anselm’s first premise defines God as, “something than which nothing greater can be conceived” (2). He then proceeds to claim that something that is understood exists, as an object, in an individual’s understanding, regardless of whether the individual believes the object…show more content… Something than which nothing greater can be conceived existing in our understanding and in reality would be conceivably greater than if it simply existed in our understanding, therefore, to maintain the definition, God must exist in both reality and understanding. Although Anselm fails to prove God’s existence in reality, he succeeds in reaffirming the idea that something must be observed to know it exists. Anselm’s argument rests on the conception of God existing “just in understanding” and conceiving of it existing in reality too, and the resulting contradiction of definition that follows. According to Anselm’s definition of understanding, concepts, regardless of their existence in reality, exist as objects in understanding. To use his own analogy, the painter’s painting exists as an object in his understanding before it is painted into reality, so then we must also say that all concepts exist in understanding, from the milk in your cereal to the leaf pile in the fall. Therefore, in a sense,