Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Philosophy of Religion

www.pactiss.org/

www.alhassanain.org/english

Table of Contents

Introduction 4

Arguments for the Existence of God 5

Pascal’s Wager 5

The Ontological Argument 5

The Cosmological Argument 5

The Teleological Argument 5

The Moral Argument 6

The Argument from Religious Experience 6

The Argument from Miracles 6

Pascal’s Wager 7

Wagering on Atheism 9

We Cannot Choose our Beliefs 10

The Ontological Argument 12

Anselm’s Ontological Argument 13

Anselm - Proslogion 14

Gaunilo’s Perfect Island 14

The Cosmological Argument 16

The Simple Cosmological Argument 16

The Kalam Cosmological Argument 17

The Argument from Contingency 18

The Teleological Argument 20

The Argument from Analogy 20

The Argument from Fine-Tuning 21

A Weak Analogy 22

Analogy and Anthropomorphism 22

The Moral Argument 24

The Argument from Religious Experience 25

The Argument from Miracles 26

Arguments for Atheism 27

The Problem of Evil 27

Problems With Divine Omnipotence 27

Problems with Divine Omniscience 27

Problems with Divine Justice 27

The Argument from Autonomy 28

The Problem of Evil 29

The Argument from Evil 29

The Argument from Imperfection 30

The Argument from Natural Evil 31

The Argument from Moral Evil 32

The Free-Will Defence 33

The Argument from Moral Evil 33

The Argument from Unbelief 34

Problems with Divine Omnipotence 35

The Paradox of Omnipotence 35

Problems with Divine Omniscience 36

Problems with Experiential Knowledge 36

Freedom and Foreknowledge 38

The Argument from Future Facts 40

Problems with Divine Justice 42

The Argument from Autonomy 43

Introduction

“... a little philosophyinclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophybringeth men’s minds about to religion.” [Francis Bacon, Of Atheism]

The philosophy of religion is replete with arguments that purport to prove the existence of God. Not all of these arguments have their origins in Christian philosophy; Jewish and Muslim philosophers have made significant contributions to the philosophy of religion, and both Plato and Aristotle have influenced its development. Recent decades have seen something of a revival of interest in natural theology and the philosophy of religion. Each of the classical theistic proofs has been revived and refined, presented in revised form and defended afresh. Whether any of these arguments for the existence of God is successful, of course, remains controversial. The theistic proofs section sets out to explain each of the common philosophical arguments for theism, and so to explore the case for the existence of God.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Within the Arguments for the Existence of God section, the arguments are arranged under the following headings:“Pascal’s Wager” ,“The Ontological Argument” ,“The Cosmological Argument” (including the first cause argument),“The Teleological Argument” (i.e. the argument to design),“The Moral Argument” ,“Religious Experience” and“The Argument from Miracles” .

Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager is an argument for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists but rather based on an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so. The claim that it is in our interests to believe in God is supported by a consideration of the possible consequences of belief and unbelief. If we believe in God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite reward in heaven while if he does not then we have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite punishment in hell while he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothing is clearly preferable to either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing. It is therefore in our interests to believe in God.

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through abstract reasoning alone. The argument begins with an explication of the concept of God. Part of what we mean when we speak of“God” is“perfect being” ; that is what the word“God” means. A God that exists, of course, is better than a God that doesn’t. To speak of God as a perfect being is therefore to imply that he exists. If God’s perfection is a part of the concept of God, though, and if God’s perfection implies God’s existence, then God’s existence is implied by the concept of God. When we speak of“God” we cannot but speak of a being that exists. To say that God does not exist is to contradictoneself ; it is literally to speak nonsense.

The Cosmological Argument

The cosmological argument is the argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of a being that brought it into and keeps it in existence. The idea that the universe has an infinite past, stretching back in time intoinfinity, is both philosophically and scientifically problematic. All indications are that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist. This beginning was either caused or uncaused. The cosmological argument takes the suggestion that the beginning of the universe was uncaused to be impossible. The idea of an uncaused event is absurd; nothing comes from nothing. The universe was therefore caused by something outside it. The cosmological argument thus confirms one element of Christianity, the doctrine of Creation.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument is the argument from the order in the world to the existence of a being that created it with a specific purpose in mind. The universe is a highly complex system. The scale of the universe alone is astounding, and the natural laws that govern it perplex scientists still after generations of study. It is also, however, a highly ordered system; it serves a purpose. The world provides exactly the right conditions for the development and sustenance oflife, and life is a valuable thing. That this is so is remarkable; there are numerous ways in which the universe might have been different, and the vast majority of possible universes would not have supported life. To say that the universe is so ordered by chance is therefore unsatisfactory as an explanation of the appearance of design around us. It is far more plausible, and far more probable, that the universe is the way it is because it was created by God with life in mind.

The Moral Argument

The moral argument is the argument from the existence of morality to the existence of God. The existence of God, it suggests, is a necessary condition for the existence of morality. Morality consists of a set of commands, and there cannot be commands unless there is a commander; who, then, commanded morality? The answer to this question is to be found by considering the authority of morality. Commands are only as authoritative as the one that commands them, but moral authority transcends all human institutions. Morality was therefore commanded by someone whose authority transcends all human institutions. This can only be God.

The Argument from Religious Experience

The argument from religious experience is the argument that personal religious experiences can prove God’s existence to those that have them. One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him. While religious experiences themselves can only constitute direct evidence of God’s existence for those fortunate enough to have them, the fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes indirect evidence of God’s existence even to those who have not had such experiences themselves.

The Argument from Miracles

The argument from miracles is the argument that the occurrence of miracles demonstrates both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. If the Bible is to be believed, then Jesus’ ministry was accompanied by frequent miraculous signs that his claims and his teachings were endorsed by God the Father. His resurrection from the dead was, of course, the greatest of these, and is still taken by many today to be a solid foundation for their faith. Miracles typically involve the suspension of the natural operation of the universe as some supernatural event occurs. That can only happen, of course, given the existence of some supernatural being.

Pascal’s Wager

“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.” [Blaise Pascal,Pensées ,Infini-Rien ]

Pascal's Wager is an attempt to justify belief in God not with an appeal to evidence for his existence but rather with an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in the God of Christianity, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so. The argument is attributed toBlaise Pascal on the basis of a section of hisPensées entitled“Infini-rien ” . Some defenders of Pascal insist that his argument there is both more subtle and more defensible than the argument that we now call“Pascal’s Wager” . However, Pascal’s Wager has achieved sufficient popularity to warrant discussion irrespective of whether it is what Pascal intended inInfini-rien .

Pascal’s Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering the various possible consequences of belief and disbelief in the God of Christianity. If we believe in the Christian God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in the Christian God, the argument continues,then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great punishment in hell while if he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God, then, are on balance better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God. It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward in heaven or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or gain little or nothing.

The conclusion that Pascal’s Wager draws from this is that belief in the Christian God is the rational course of action, even if there is no evidence that he exists. If the Christian God does not exist then it is of little importance whether we believe or disbelieve in him. If the Christian God does exist then it is of great importance that we do believe in him. In order to cover ourselves in all circumstances, therefore, we ought to believe that the Christian God exists. A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:

(1) It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.

(2) If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.

(3) If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.

(4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.

Therefore:

(5) It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is to disbelieve in the Christian God.

(6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.

Therefore:

(7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational to disbelieve in the Christian God.

Three common objections to this argument will be considered here. A more detailed discussion of each can be found by following the appropriate link.

The first of these objections targets the third premise of the argument as it is stated above. It is the objection that Pascal’s Wager illicitly assumes a Christian view of the criteria for entrance into heaven, i.e. it illicitly assumes that if there are infinite rewards and punishments to be had then they will be distributed on the basis of belief or disbelief in the Christian god. There are many possible ways in which such rewards and punishments might be distributed; they might be distributed on the basis of belief in the Christian God, or on the basis of good deeds, or on the basis of belief in the Muslim God, for instance. In fact, distribution of heavenly rewards and infernal punishments on almost any basis imaginable appears to be possible. It is only, however, if such rewards and punishments are distributed on the basis of belief in the Christian God that belief in the Christian God is in our interests. On many of the other possible distributive schemes, it is by disbelieving in the Christian God that one receives a heavenly reward. If any of those distributive schemes were the true scheme, though, then the third premise of Pascal’s Wager would be false. It would not be the case that if one does not believe in the Christian God and the Christian God does not exist then one gains little or nothing, for if such a distributive scheme were the true scheme then one might gain a great deal (i.e. an infinite reward in heaven) by disbelieving in the Christian God. In order to demonstrate that the third premise of his argument is true, then, the advocate of Pascal’s Wager must demonstrate that the only possible criterion for entrance into heaven is belief in the Christian God and the only possible criterion for entrance into hell is disbelief in the Christian God. This, the objector suggests, cannot be demonstrated, for it is false.

The second objection to Pascal’s Wager targets the fourth premise of the argument as it is stated above. It is the objection that the probability that God exists, and so the probability of either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or of receiving an infinite punishment in hell, is so small that these possible outcomes of belief or disbelief can be discounted. The choice between belief and disbelief is thus taken to be a choice between losing little or nothing and gaining little or nothing. As it is better to gain little or nothing than it is to lose little or nothing, this objection concludes that it is wagering on atheism, rather than wagering on theism, that is the rational course of action. It is better, the objection suggests, to take the certain benefits of disbelief (the joys of indulging in sin and of being free from religious commitments) by wagering that God doesn’t exist than it is gamble on the vastly improbable hope of a heavenly reward and almost certainly gain nothing at all.

The third objection targets the inference from the fifth and sixth premises to the conclusion. It is the objection that we cannot choose our beliefs. We form our beliefs on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of desire. No matter how much one may want to believe that a given proposition is true, one cannot bring oneself to do so simply through an act of will. Rather, in order for one to come to believe that a proposition is true one requires evidence for its truth. Pascal’s Wager, though, merely prescribes belief in God; it does not provide any evidence that such a belief would be true. As such, it asks us to do the impossible: to believe without reason.

Wagering on Atheism

The second objection to Pascal’s Wager. That the probability that the Christian God exists is so small that it is wagering on atheism, rather than wagering on theism, that is the rational course of action.

In calculating whether belief in the Christian God or disbelief in the Christian God is the more prudent course of action, it is necessary not only to take account of the various possible outcomes of belief and disbelief, but also to take account of the probability of each of these outcomes occurring.

The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God - either receiving an infinitely great reward in heaven or losing little or nothing - are better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God - either receiving an infinitely great punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing. If the probability of each of these outcomes were approximately equal, then belief would clearly be preferable to disbelief.

If, however, the probability that the Christian God exists were so slight as to be negligible, then we might be justified in setting aside the possibilities of heavenly rewards and infernal punishments in deciding what to believe. The choice between belief and disbelief would thus become a choice between losing little or nothing and gaining little or nothing; heaven and hell would not come into the equation. As it is better to gain little or nothing than it is to lose little or nothing, in this case it would be disbelief in the Christian God rather than belief in him that would be the prudent course of action.

Those who object to Pascal’s Wager on these grounds take themselves to be in exactly this situation; they judge the existence of the Christian God to be so unlikely that they need not seriously entertain it as a possibility. They therefore hold that it is rational to take the certain benefits of disbelief (the joys of indulging in sin and of being free from religious commitments), and irrational to gamble on the hope of a heavenly reward and almost certainly receive nothing at all.

There are three types of response to this objection available to the advocate of Pascal’s Wager.

The first response to this objection available to the advocate of Pascal’s Wager is the denial that it is improbable that the Christian God exists. One way of doing this would be to offer an argument for agnosticism. Indeed, Pascal’s discussion in“Infini-Rien ” is based on just an argument; Pascal claims that because our minds are finite we cannot comprehend the infinite and so cannot decide whether or not God exists on the basis of evidence. A second way of doing this would be to offer some positive evidence for the existence of God, e.g. the argument from fine-tuning. Certainly the claim that God’s existence is unlikely is debatable, and the theist shouldcriticise the objection to Pascal’s Wager on this point.

The second response to the objection available to the advocate of Pascal’s Wager is not only consistent with God’s existence being improbable, but is even consistent with God’s existence being impossible. This response involves the denial that a life without faith is better than a life with faithif God does not exist. Religious faith can, this response notes, bring rewards in this life even if not in the next. Even if there are no eternal rewards and punishments, it suggests, those with religious faith live lives with a sense of value and purpose that is seldom found elsewhere. It might thus be maintained that belief in God is in our interests irrespective of whether or not God exists, and so that belief in God is pragmatically justified no matter how improbable it is that such beliefs are true. The difficulty with this response is that in addition to those that have found that religion addsfulfilment to their lives there are those that have found religion stifling and oppressive. Belief in God does not always bring with it obvious rewards in this life; indeed, it is in many cases associated with suffering and persecution.

The third possible line ofdefence for the advocate of Pascal’s Wager stresses the magnitude of the possible punishments and rewards that are at stake when we decide whether or not to believe. What is at stake when one decides whether to believe or to disbelieve in God, the argument suggests, is not the possibility of receiving either a great reward or a great punishment. Rather, what is at stake is the possibility of receiving either an infinite reward or an infinite punishment. It is sometimes argued that where infinite rewards and punishments are at stake, we ought to be prepared to take any finite risk in attempting to secure the reward and to avoid the punishment, irrespective of the probability of our succeeding in doing so. What ought we not to risk in pursuit of such a prize as heaven?

We Cannot Choose our Beliefs

The third objection to Pascal’s Wager relates to a philosophical theory called“doxastic voluntarism” .“Doxastic ” means“pertaining to belief” .“Voluntarist ” theories are theories thatemphasise the primacy of the will.Doxastic voluntarism is thus the theory that belief is subject to the will, i.e. that we are able to choose what to believe.

There are certain cases in whichdoxastic voluntarism clearly does not hold. We cannot simply choose to believe that it is the year 2020 and that elephants rule the Earth; we cannot induce this belief in ourselves by a sheer act of will. Many philosophers think thatdoxastic voluntarism is false in all circumstances; that belief is entirely subject to reason rather than to the will. If this is true, then it presents a problem for Pascal’s Wager.

The objection to Pascal’s Wager is that we form our beliefs on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of desire, i.e. that we cannot choose our beliefs. No matter how much I may want to believe that a given proposition is true, I cannot bring myself to do so simply by willing that I do so. Rather, in order to come to believe that the proposition is true I require some evidence for its truth.

If this is correct, then in prescribing that we choose to believe in God Pascal’s Wager is prescribing the impossible. Pascal’s Wager may be sound insofar as it tells us to do all we can to bring it about that we believe in God, but if we are unable to do anything to bring it about that we believe in God then this conclusion will hardly be significant.

Some respond to this objection by mounting at least a partialdefence ofdoxastic voluntarism. It may be thatdoxastic voluntarism is false with regard to certain beliefs, such as the belief that it is the year 2020 and that elephants rule the Earth. With regard to certain other beliefs, including belief in the existence of God, however,doxastic voluntarism is somewhat more plausible. We have a great deal of evidence, it might be argued, that it is not the year 2020 and that elephants do not rule the Earth, and it is this evidence that prevents us from choosing to believe both that it is and that they do. What evidence we have concerning the existence of God, however, is far less conclusive, and so an element of choice whether to believe or to disbelieve remains.

A stronger response to the objection, however, is to concentrate on the indirect control that we have over our beliefs.Doxastic voluntarism may be false, i.e. it may be false that we can induce in ourselves a belief in God simply by willing that we so believe, but Pascal’s Wager does not distinguish between beliefs formed by the will and beliefs formed in any other way. Pascal’s Wager prescribes belief in God; it does not prescribe belief in God by a sheer act of will. There are other means by which it is possible to induce in oneself a belief in God, and if the only problem with Pascal’s Wager were thatdoxastic voluntarism is false then it would demonstrate that we ought to use these other means in order to bring ourselves to believe.

Though we do not have direct, voluntary control over our beliefs, it does seem that we have indirect control over them. We are able, for instance, to exercise control over the kinds of evidence to which we are exposed. We can choose to associate with people who believe in God; we can choose to read books by noted apologists; we can choose to act is if we believe and see what happens. Each of these choices would increase the likelihood of our coming to believe in God. If Pascal’s Wager is correct in saying that we ought to exercise what control we can over our beliefs in an attempt to induce in ourselves a belief in God, therefore, then we ought to do each of these things.

There are also other, more cynical ways in which we can exercise control over our beliefs. Using the techniques of hypnosis it is possible to induce beliefs in a subject without any regard for evidence at all. If one were thoroughly convinced of Pascal’s Wager, therefore, then one might choose to exercise control over one’s beliefs by hiring a hypnotist.

There are, then, some things that we can do to influence our beliefs even ifdoxastic voluntarism is false. Even if we cannot induce in ourselves a belief in God simply by an act of will, we can exercise control over our beliefs in other ways. If Pascal’s Wager is to be resisted, therefore, then this must be done on some other ground than that we cannot choose our beliefs.

The Ontological Argument

“But clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought of as existing also inreality, and this is greater... Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both in the understanding and in reality, something than which a greater cannot be thought.” [St Anselm,Proslogion , Chapter 2]

The ontological argument attempts to prove God’s existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, i.e. it involves no empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone. The argument is ingenious. It has the appearance of a linguistic trick, but it is a difficult task to say precisely what, ifanything, is wrong with it. All forms of the argument make some association between three concepts: the concepts of God, of perfection, and of existence. Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God’s existence.

The ontological argument was first formulated in the eleventh century by St. Anselm in hisProslogion , Chapter 2. Anselm was a Benedictine monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, and one of the great medieval philosopher-theologians. Anselm’s ontological argument rests on the identification of God as“that than which no greater can be conceived” . Once it is understood that God is that than which no greater can be conceived, Anselm suggests, it becomes evident that God must exist.

A form of the ontological argument also constitutes the crux of Rene Descartes’ Meditations. Having presented the argument from dreaming - thesceptical argument that we are not justified in believing that there exists an external world on the basis of sense-perception because one might have the same sense-perceptions in a dream - Descartes rescues himself fromscepticism on the basis of his belief in God. God is no deceiver, Descartes argues, and so our clear and distinct perceptions of the external world can be trusted. Descartes arrives at the belief that there exists a trustworthy God via a form of ontological argument.

The most prominent modern advocate of the ontological argument is AlvinPlantinga .Plantinga is best-known for hisdefence of the view that religious belief is foundational, i.e. that religious belief does not stand in need of external justification, but is also known for his work on modal logic, i.e. on the logic of possibility and necessity.Plantinga applies his approach to modal logic to the ontological argument, presenting it in a revised form.

The critics of the ontological argument are no less distinguished than are its advocates. Among them is St. Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth century Dominican and the greatest philosopher of religion of all. Aquinas wascanonised in the fourteenth century, when he was said by the Pope to have met the criterion forcanonisation of having performed three miracles in virtue of the answers that he had given to perplexing philosophical questions about God. Aquinas rejected the ontological argument in his SummaTheologica , First Part,Question Two.

The earliest critic of the ontological argument, though, was a contemporary of Anselm, the monkGaunilo ofMarmoutier .Gaunilo objected to the ontological argument on the ground that it seemed possible to use its logic to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all.Gaunilo sought to demonstrate this by constructing an ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island. This argument, he suggested, is clearly fallacious, and so the ontological argument for the existence of God, which relies on precisely the same logic, must be fallacious too.

The most vaunted criticisms of the ontological argument, however, are those of Immanuel Kant. Kant argued against the ontological argument on the grounds that existence is not a property of particulars but a property of concepts, and that whatever ideas may participate in a given concept it is a further question whether that concept is instantiated. Whether his criticisms are sufficient to undermine all forms of the ontological argument remains a matter of much dispute.

h of these things.

There are also other, more cynical ways in which we can exercise control over our beliefs. Using the techniques of hypnosis it is possible to induce beliefs in a subject without any regard for evidence at all. If one were thoroughly convinced of Pascal’s Wager, therefore, then one might choose to exercise control over one’s beliefs by hiring a hypnotist.

There are, then, some things that we can do to influence our beliefs even ifdoxastic voluntarism is false. Even if we cannot induce in ourselves a belief in God simply by an act of will, we can exercise control over our beliefs in other ways. If Pascal’s Wager is to be resisted, therefore, then this must be done on some other ground than that we cannot choose our beliefs.

Anselm’s Ontological Argument

St Anselm’s version of the ontological argument appears in hisProslogion , Chapter 2. His is the definitive statement of the argument. It has the form of areductio ad absurdum, which means that it takes a hypothesis, shows that it has absurd or otherwise unacceptable implications, and so concludes that the hypothesis is false. In the case of Anselm’s ontological argument, the hypothesis treated in this way is the hypothesis that God does not exist.

Anselm’s argument rests upon the conception of God as“that than which no greater can be conceived” . It is this conception of God with which the hypothesis that God does not exist is supposed to conflict. If God does not exist, Anselm argues,then something can be imagined that is greater than God, namely a God that does exist. If, though, God is that than which no greater can be conceived, then nothing can be imagined that is greater than God. The hypothesis that God does not exist thus seems to give rise to a logical absurdity: that there both is and is not something that can be imagined that is greater than God. A hypothesis that gives rise to a logical absurdity, though, must be false. God, therefore, exists.

A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:

(1) God is that than which no greater can be conceived.

(2) If God is that than which no greater can be conceived then there is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.

Therefore:

(3) There is nothing greater than God that can be imagined.

(4) If God does not exist then there is something greater than God that can be imagined.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

The first premise of this argument, (1), is Anselm’s conception of God. (2)is a simple logical truth; if God is the greatest conceivable being then there is no greater conceivable being. (3)follows simply from (1) and (2).

Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God. (5)follows simply from (3) and (4).

Anselm -Proslogion

This central argument of this chapter is described in Anselm’s ontological argument. TheProslogion itself goes as follows:

Chapter 2: God Truly Is

And so, O Lord, since thougivest understanding to faith, give me to understand - as far as thouknowest it to be good for me - that thou dost exist, as we believe, and that thou art what we believe thee to be.Now we believe that thou art a being than which none greater can be thought. Or can it be that there is no such being, since“The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” ? But when this same fool hears what I am saying -“A being than which none greater can be thought” - he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it exists. For it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another thing to understand that it exists. When a painter considers beforehand what he is going to paint, he has it in his understanding, but he does not suppose that what he has not yet painted already exists. But when he has painted it, he both has it in his understanding and understands that what he has now produced exists. Even the fool, then, must be convinced that a being than which none greater can be though exists at least in his understanding, since when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding. But clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thought of as existing also inreality, and this is greater. Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought is in the understanding alone, this same thing than which a greater cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought. But obviously this is impossible. Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both in the understanding and in reality, something than which a greater cannot be thought.

Gaunilo’s Perfect Island

The ontological argument is the argument that it follows from the concept of God that God actually exists. God is, as Anselm put it, that than which no greater can be conceived. A God that does not exist, though, cannot be that than which no greater can be conceived, for he could be conceived to exist which would be greater. God, therefore, cannot be non-existent; he must exist.

One problem with this argument is that it invites parody. Parallel arguments purporting to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed. This objection was first raised by one of Anselm’s contemporaries, the monkGaunilo ofMarmoutier , who constructed an ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island.

The perfect island, this argument goes, is the island than which no greater can be conceived. Any island that does not exist, though, cannot be the island than which no greater can be conceived, for it could be conceived to exist which would be greater. The perfect island, therefore, cannot be non-existent; it must exist.

Similar arguments for the existence of the perfect baseball pitcher, or the perfect husband - for the existence of any perfect thing at all - can be constructed.

If any of these arguments is sound, it seems,then they must all be sound. Clearly, though, they are not all sound; the perfect baseball pitcher does not exist, and neither does the perfect husband. All of these ontological arguments, then, must be unsound, including the ontological argument for the existence of God.