the ontological argument...

as provided to us by Saint Anselm for the existence of God goes as such…

[in its syllogistic formulation:]
1) God is that, the greater than which cannot be conceived.

2) If the idea of God exists in our understand, but does not exist in reality, then something is conceivable as greater than God.

Therefore, if the idea of God exists in our understanding, then God exists in reality.

[symbolism of the ontological argument:]
1) G

2) (I • ~R) ⊃ ~G

∴ I ⊃ R

it begins from the idea of God as that which no greater can be conceived, i.e. absolutely perfect: that is what is meant by God. if such a being had only ideal reality, existed only in our subjective idea, we could still conceive a greater being, namely a being; which did not exist simply in our idea but in objective reality. it follows then, that the idea of God as absolute perfection is necessarily the idea of an existent Being, and you cannot at the same time have the idea of God and yet deny His existence. if you have the correct idea of what God is, i.e. absolute perfection, you could only deny God with your lips. yes, the idea of God. this is where the argument begins. as an idea of. so how does this argument work? it is only the ‘fool’ that would deny the existence of God. because the absolutely perfect Being is a Being the essence of which is to exist or which necessarily involves existence, since otherwise a more perfect being could be conceived; it is the necessary Being; and a necessary being which did not exist would be a contradiction in terms.

so how does this argument work, if it does? well by the lips of the ‘fool’, the ‘fool will say the opposite of what Anselm states; i.e. symbolically ~(I ⊃ R), or God does not exist in our understanding, then God does not exist in reality.

this type of argument is called an reductio ad absurdum proofs, or an indirect proof; where an assumption is ‘reduced to absurdity’ by showing a contradiction. if there is a contradiction or contradictory sentence within an argument it shows an inconsistency. this contradiction states that it cannot be true. a contradiction symbolized is as such p • ~p. It is obvious that this sentence is unable to be true, and thus false. logic alone guarantees the falsity of contradictions. given the definition of a valid argument, a false sentence cannot be validly inferred from true premises. indirect proof consists in assuming the negation of a statement form to be obtained. by using this assumption to derive a contradiction, and then concluding that the original assumption is false, and thus the original argument is valid. the contradiction comes in by conjoining G • ~G; God is that, the great than which cannot be conceived, and something is conceivable as great than God. so it is valid; symbolically.

in Anselm’s work, the Proslogion, Gaunilo replies that just because we have an idea of this thing, does not guarantee its existence. in the words of Anselm, we might as well say that the most beautiful island exist somewhere, because we can conceive them. Anselm’s reply is that the idea of God is the idea of an all-perfect Being and if absolute perfection involves existence, this idea is the idea of an existent, and necessarily existent Being, whereas the idea of even the most beautiful islands is not the idea of something which must exist: even in the purely logical order the two ideas are not on a par. if God is possible, i.e. the idea of the all-perfect and necessary Being contains no contradiction, God must exist, since it would be absurd to speak of a merely possible necessary Being. there is no contradiction in speaking of merely possible beautiful islands.

so what is the problem?