Bankrupting Anselms Ontological Argument

[Queebeagle]

When I first came across Anselm’s Ontological Argument it irritated my brain greatly. I knew instinctively there was something terribly wrong with it. I managed to finally work out the basics one night before my exam. Think I got an A+, can’t remember now, it was a while ago. I never published this anywhere but now figure why shouldn’t it be out there? So here goes.

Anselm’s argument goes something like this:

(1) God doesn’t exist.
[Supposition for reductio]
(2) God is something that which nothing greater can be conceived (or: God is the greatest possible being).
[Definition or concept of ‘God’]
(3) God might have existed.
(4) If something doesn’t exist but might have existed, then it might have been greater than it is.
Therefore,
(5) God might have been greater than God is. [From (1), (3), (4)]
So,
(6) God is something than which a greater can be conceived.
(7) But it’s impossible for there to be something greater than the greatest possible being.
Therefore,
(8) God exists.

(my thanks to Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand for this)

I propose to answer this argument using the following:
Answer: “No”
Question: “Why?”
Answer: “Because God is eternal.”
??

My argument claims that this bankrupts Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Anyone new to philosophy should know that bankrupt here means to utterly destroy the argument.

This is the core of Anselm’s argument:

If something doesn’t exist but might have existed, then it might have been greater than it is.

Later on this is used to produce the contradiction by substituting God for ‘something’ and ‘it’.

Let’s have a quick look at the logic path of the core.

It starts with the assumption that ‘something does not exist’ (now). This is the assumption that is held as being true for the sake of the argument. Anselm wants us to assume this is true so he can show that holding this assumption as true necessarily results in a logical contradiction which means the assumption cannot be true. REMEMBER THIS! Many people who discuss the argument seem to forget you must hold this assumption as true throughout the argument.

This beginning leads to two possible paths using ‘…but might have existed’:
1 – the something did indeed exist or
2 – the something did not exist.

Note here the use of past tense using ‘might have’, it does not say ‘might’ without the past tense ‘have’ because this would directly contradict the initial assumption Anselm wants us to hold as true. The argument cannot directly contradict the initial assumption because that results in the argument simply saying ‘God might or might not exist’, which is no argument at all.

The path to the contradiction that Anselm wants includes ‘does not exist now’, the primary supposition, and ‘existed before now’, the only path to a logical contradiction.

But God is eternal and cannot both exist and not exist in the same universe at different points in time. The only path that God would take in the argument is to ‘not exist before now’ because God not existing now AND eternal means not existing ever. No you are not allowed to kill God.

Of course the initial supposition might be wrong and the reality of the universe might be God actually existing now and therefore existing at all points in time in this universe. But that is outside of the scope of this specific argument of Anselm’s.

When pointed out that his argument relies on time separating the possibility of existing into two parts, now and before now, and allowing for separate values for existing for each then it becomes obvious with 'eternal' that this should not be allowed for God.

It is allowable for anything not eternal which is why the argument has a certain logical validity.

Example:

A T-rex does not exist in reality but might have existed therefore it might have been greater than it is.

This makes sense because if we time-travelled back 65 million years and actually came face to face with a living breathing mammal eating T-rex I’m not sure anyone would doubt the claim that the reality of something is greater than just the idea.

Unfortunately for Anselm the argument only works for things not eternal and it can be bankrupted by using the three words “God is eternal”.

This statement that God is eternal is unlikely to be refuted from being true of the God associated with the Christian/Islamic/Judaic concept of God. Ask any person of those religions whether God is eternal and they will say yes.
This dispenses with any arguments against my argument that require a God to be not-eternal. Such a concept of a God is theoretically possible from a logical sense but would certainly not be what Anselm had in mind when he created the argument. Couple this with the fact that none of the religions would agree to a concept of God that can cease to exist universally and the statement “God is eternal” must be accepted as a fact within the constraints of Anselm’s argument.

If God does not exist now then this creates a universal requirement for God to not exist at all in reality ever. Of course the opposite might also be true and God might exist but if God does exist then God exists eternally and so exists at all points in time.

God being eternal means God can either exist through all time or God does not exist through all time but there can never be a universe where both are true or where neither is true.

Anselm’s argument requires both to be true in order to get the contradiction. Modern interpretations obfuscate this by pointing to the same variable, ‘something’, but at different times and saying what if they have different values at different times? They cannot be different because of God being eternal.

Anselm’s actual argument:

‘we believe that you [i.e. God] are something than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or can it be that a thing of such a nature does not exist, since [to quote Psalms 14.1] “the Fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’”? But surely, when this same Fool hears what I am speaking about, namely “something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived”, he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his mind, even if he does not understand that it actually exists. For it is one thing for an object to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that the object actually exists. ... Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived exists in the mind, since he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is understood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. If, then, that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived exists in the mind alone, this same that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived is that-than-which-a-greater-can-be-conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Therefore, there is no doubt that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived [God] exists both in the mind and in reality.’

Personally I think Anselm actually had in mind the weaker argument rather than the modern interpretation of it. This weaker argument doesn’t include any time fracturing so is immune to my previous argument. It is weaker however because it can be refuted easily by arguing that the concept of God in someone’s head does not change dependent on God existing. The concept remains exactly the same because it includes the notion that God actually exists already.

To address this sentence ‘And surely that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived cannot exist in the mind alone’ we can say ‘actually yes it can because the concept is not dependent on the real existence only the concept of it being real’.

It actually just means if God does not exist in reality then you’re being delusional about the truth value of your belief that God does exist in reality, but we all know that already heh!

One thing needs to be pointed out again, that the initial supposition is not to be changed mid-argument. You can’t say ‘so what if God does actually exist in contrast to your claim?’ because the whole argument is that if you assume God does not exist this results in a logical contradiction. This means right now that God does not exist in reality (the assumed truth position). For God to actually exist right now would not be a logical contradiction it would be a real contradiction and not what the argument is about.


Aaand … discuss.

[Philosch]

Just one question, you say that "god is eternal" and that bankrupts the argument. Do you mean the notion or generally held concept and/or definition of "god" is that he/she/it is eternal or that god is in reality eternal? In any case not a bad refutation. I had developed one also but it was basically the weaker interpretation I attacked as that's the one it appeared to me that Anselm was espousing. As you say it's also easier to do and I didn't attempt to do say nearly as formally as you. Modern interpretative attempts to support Anselm's argument never have impressed me anyhow.

[Queebeagle]

Anselm used the Christian/Islamic/Judaic concept of God for his argument and this argument has nothing to do with reality so we're just dealing with a God concept from that religious triad. As mentioned they all would agree that they consider (their idea of God) God to be eternal. As a concept of reality you could easily throw in a flexible God that could either die or cease itself to exist for a vacation heh! Either would refute my argument It's only designed to deal with Anselm's arg

[Renee]

When I first came across Anselm’s Ontological Argument it irritated my brain greatly. I knew instinctively there was something terribly wrong with it. I managed to finally work out the basics one night before my exam. Think I got an A+, can’t remember now, it was a while ago. I never published this anywhere but now figure why shouldn’t it be out there? So here goes.

Anselm’s argument goes something like this:

(1) God doesn’t exist.
[Supposition for reductio]
(2) God is something that which nothing greater can be conceived (or: God is the greatest possible being).
[Definition or concept of ‘God’]
(3) God might have existed.
(4) If something doesn’t exist but might have existed, then it might have been greater than it is.
Therefore,
(5) God might have been greater than God is. [From (1), (3), (4)]
So,
(6) God is something than which a greater can be conceived.
(7) But it’s impossible for there to be something greater than the greatest possible being.
Therefore,
(8) God exists.

(1) is an assumption assumed to be true. It is of empirical nature; it can only be negated by empirically finding at least one god.

If (1) is assumed to be false, then the entire argument is moot. So we must assume that Anselm intended (1) as truth (even if only for the sake of argument, that is, as a "devil's advocate".)

His ensuing argument is in the sphere of logic and abstract, without any reference to reality. Anselm's reference to reality is that of a hypotheses of the greatness of all things. That does not assert a piece of evidence of god. It asserts the existence of all, whether that all is the biggest or not of all things.

Furthermore, and this is more crucial: from point (2) on, inclusive, there is already an assumption imbedded in the points that God exists, by saying things such as "God is something (etc)". This sentence fragment is in the present tense indicative mood, so it is saying that there is a God. If it were in the present tense subjunctive mood, it would read better. But it is not. IN other words, Anselm presents a foregone conclusion; he, in these sentences, makes an assertion of truth of god's existence before he'd prove the truth of god's existence. Then he uses this unproved and illogical (against the assertion by (1)) conclusion in his final conclusion. Using illogical steps in a logical proof renders the proof illogical and therefore, useless.

So the argument stands inasmuch as (1) has been negated by "God is". But Anselm fails in providing an empirical piece of evidence that God actually exists. And that empirical proof is absolutely required by (1) to negate (1). In other words, anyone can say "God exists" or "God is" without God actually existing or issing. Much like I can say "My refrigerator talks to me and does my kids' math homework" without my even possessing a refrigerator. Mere assertions do not an empirical piece of evidence.

I think this is where Anselm's ontological argument fails. At least in the form in which it has been presented here.

[JamesCaan]

Anselms Ontological argument is mind and faith only. Empiricism is irrelevant as nothing in the syllogism implies proof of God existing via evidence but merely necessity of Gods existence being predicated on the conceivable in mind dependent truth. No one who believes there is no God can claim they do not conceive of such a God dependent upon mind only. For to argue against such a God one must conceive of said God in mind. Therefore conceptually speaking it is axiomatic that God exists in mind dependent reality for everyone including those who believe God doesn't exist external to mind dependent truth. Therefore if one asserts they can conceive of no greater being in mind then it would be illogical to not admit that existence external to mind is necessary to extend the logic of nothing greater than that which can be conceived because existence in reality external to mind dependent truth is what that which no greater can be conceived entails. If you don't think God qualifies as that which nothing greater can be conceived then the argument simply doesn't apply. You simply say that you can conceive of that which is greater than (a) God.