Christopher Goodman
February 24,1997

The Ontological Argument, put forth by Saint Anselm in his Proslogium, attempts to prove the existence of God simply by the fact that we have a particular concept of God - that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Saint Anselm presents a convincing argument that many people view as the work of a genius. It is also quite often considered a failure because, in William L. Rowe's words, "In granting that Anselm's God is a possible thing we are in fact granting that Anselm's God actually exists." In other words, it "assumes the point it is supposed to prove", primarily because is assumes that existence is a great-making quality, and for God to be truly great, he must exist. I disagree with Rowe's point that Anselm's definition of God invalidates his argument because it later helps to prove Anselm's argument. I agree with Anselm's assumption that existence is a great-making quality. Therefore, I take the stance that Anselm's Argument is a valid one.

There are so many things that go into supporting an argument like Anselm's. One must definitely consider the epistemological questions, or the "How do we know what we know?" questions. One must also consider how God should be defined, especially since the definition and concept of God is so central to Anselm's point. I take the position that knowledge is belief that is reasonably and logically supported. Knowledge approaches truth, or the actuality, but is not necessarily true. I believe that knowledge is the closest we can get to truth with the information we have access to. Therefore, at the root of all knowledge is a belief that has been supported by other information that we believe. Thus, a belief may become knowledge, and knowledge is based on belief. A belief may or may not be true, but the same goes for knowledge, only we feel that knowledge is more likely to be true. A descriptive way to put it is that knowledge is simply belief that we feel safe enough to bet on. If one accepts these definitions, and understands the concepts they stand for, then one can say that Anselm arrives at the decision that he knows that God exists, and cannot be conceived not to exist. And this is as close to the reality of the existence or nonexistence of God that we as humans, relying on our senses and reasoning for knowledge of truth, can actually come to the truth.

Definitions are the other problem that I must cover, and Anselm also spends considerable time speaking of definitions and how they differ from the understanding, or concept, of something. A definition is the word or words for a concept. There is the tree itself (the truth, or reality), there is our concept of the tree (or our knowledge and beliefs of and about the tree), and there is the word "tree" and all the words describing our concepts of it, or our definition for the thing we call "tree". So, what I am illustrating is that definitions are how we put our concepts into words, and that our concepts are a combination of our beliefs and knowledge of what actually is.

What Anselm basically states in his argument is that if one truly understands what "that than which nothing greater can exist" is, and accept it as a possible definition of God, then one must know that God exists (this assumes that existence is a great making quality, which I will deal with shortly). If one believes that God does not exist while accepting Anselm's definition/conception of God, then one does not really understand "that than which nothing greater can exist." If we understand this concept, it has to exist. If we think that it does not exist, then we really do not understand the concept. This obviously does not apply to everything, but it does apply to many ideas, such as the idea, or concept, of God. Rowe believes that this is bad reasoning because a person could be drawn into admitting more than he might otherwise (because the definition includes more than what seems to be there). However, I offer proof that this is not bad reasoning by making an analogy with freedom.

So, we want to prove that freedom exists. In order to prove that, we must have a clear definition as to what freedom is, in its simplest form. Therefore, let us say that freedom is the ability to make make choices. Most people, I think, would agree with this definition; it is clear, but does not carry a lot of specifics about the different qualities or the nature of freedom. I have the ability to make choices, so I have freedom - freedom exists for me. To make a decision, which is based on the ability to make any choice, I must have an idea as to the concept of freedom. I also have to have a concept of choice, which is a necessary part of the definition of freedom. Otherwise, I would not be making choices - I would simply do; I would do whatever first popped into my head (including nothing if nothing popped into my head), or whatever something with power over me made me do. If I choose to think that freedom does not exist, then I am making a choice. Therefore, I am exercising freedom, but I do not really understand what freedom is, because if I know what freedom is, I would realize that I had just used it. Thus we have a concept that, if really understood and accepted as true, necessarily exists, for we would have no concept of it if it did not exist. This is a slightly different take on the Ontological Argument, but I believe a valid, closely related one.

Anselm defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." This is a definition that most people can agree with, and I believe that this is why Anselm chose it. The big argument that arises now is, "what is meant by greatness?" Most people would agree with Rowe's statement that Anselm is not talking about size when he speaks of greatness. Anselm speaks of wisdom as being an aspect of greatness, or that wisdom contributes to something's greatness. Rowe, I believe, gets too specific in this part of his response; he gets bogged down with what are great-making qualities, which I believe relates more to developing a more complete idea of the nature of God than simply seeing if "that than which nothing greater can be conceived" actually exists.

I believe that Anselm, by example, is equating greatness with power (in the purely neutral sense of the word). I say so because few, if any, would disagree with the idea that wisdom makes one more powerful, or greater, than mere size can do. Rowe uses his argument about this aspect (that wisdom is a great-making power) to equate existence with wisdom as part of the nature of God, which cannot be used to help find out if God, in fact, exists (and because the conclusion is part of an earlier premise, but I already dealt with that). But, Anselm's concept of God is that God is that which is all-powerful, or omnipotent. His goal is to prove that if you believe this concept of God, and understand the concept, then you know that God exists, or you are a "fool" (you contradict yourself). He does not go into any other aspects of God's nature until he has proven this point.

The only point of contention left is, in Rowe's words, is "existence in reality a great-making quality?" I believe that Rowe himself adequately proves this to be true. Take for instance the Fountain of Youth example. The Fountain of Youth would be greater (or more powerful) than it is if it existed. If existence is looked upon in this way, then it can be applied to everything, including God.

Therefore, if one understands the concept of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", believes this to be an accurate definition/concept of God, and accepts the claim that existence is a "great-making" quality, then one must concede that God exists. Furthermore, Rowe's point that Anselm's definition of God invalidates his argument, because it later helps proves Anselm's argument, is not valid because, as with the freedom example, it can be shown that for some things the fact that we have particular concepts about them proves their existence. Consequently, I still believe that Saint Anselm has a valid argument.