The Flaws of Anselm's Ontological
Proof of God
An analytical essay
Presented to Professor Lori Alward
On this, the 9th of September, 1998
By Jared Earles

	Philosophers have always and will always ponder God's existence. Anselm offers an ontology based on the definition of God as "a being than which none greater can be conceived." From this, his ontology proves God's existence in the understanding and subsequently in reality. It should be noted that, though Anselm seeks to prove the God of the Bible, his ontology applies to all conceptions of God. This essay will explain the definition of God, explain its shortcomings, and offer counter-definitions.
	Anselm characterizes God as beyond human conception. To fully understand this definition, we must analyze it in two ways: first, in terms of Anselm's possible insights, and second, in terms of human capabilities. Anselm discussed the God of the Bible, thus the Bible is a legitimate source for a definition of 
God. Isaiah 4:9-10 reads:
"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times, things which have not yet been done."
This initially establishes that God is unique in His power and ability. Additionally, God singles out omniscience as a quality separating him from man.
	Both Gassendi and Descartes would agree that mankind is incapable of conceptualizing the infinite. At this point, Descartes would agree that the line between God and the infinite is often blurred. Dr. Silvia Helena Cardoso, Editor-in-chief of Brain & Mind magazine, argues: "the brain is complex enough to account for the mysteries of learning, memory, emotion, creativity, and consciousness." Thus, God being beyond human conception, would be infinitely knowing, infinitely loving, and infinitely creative. Descartes would go on to say that God's infinite nature grants Him an "utter lack of potential."
	This leads to the first argument against Anselm's ontology: if God is a being beyond human conception (implying an infinite nature beyond human understanding), how can he exist in the fool's understanding? If Descartes is correct in his association between God and the infinite, then God would be 
impossible for humans to comprehend.  If this is true, then God does not exist in the understanding of either the fool or the believer, and thus does not exist in reality.
	Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, questions the viability of an ontological proof of God. He writes: "Philosophers have always talked of an absolutely necessary being, and have nevertheless declined to take the trouble of conceiving whether and how a being of this nature is even cogitable, not to mention that its existence is actually demonstrable." A claim of existence is empirical in nature. Kant argues that an ontological proof does not suffice for an empirical question.
	A more viable solution would be based on a dual philosophical and empirical proof. Kant argues that God is the just entity who empowers morals. Anselm's definition could also be viable given an empirical claim. Albert Einstein said: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction in the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God." Einstein argues that God is the basis of all order in the universe, a claim which he argues science furthers. The addition of this empirical claim furthers the truth of Anselm's argument, and it makes a fitting addition to Kant's moral reasoning.
	Another of Anselm's errors is his link between existence in the understanding and existence in reality. He admits that a painting can exist in the painter's mind, but that does not constitute its existence in reality. In this way, God is similar. There is no causal relationship between existence in the understanding and existence in reality. Thus God's existence in the understanding does not constitute existence in reality. Moreover, Anselm mistakes existence in the understanding as a sort of existence. There could be much argument made that thoughts do not exist, as they are immaterial objects. I do not wish to undertake this debate; I simply argue that Anselm assumes an existence in understanding that does not truly exist.
	Furthermore, if I were to grant the previous argument to Anselm, his conception of existence is a misnomer. A given particle can be broken down into molecules, and those into atoms, and so forth. At no point does a specific ingredient which could be labeled God appear. If this is true of every particle of the universe, then it is true that God is not part of the universe. As a result, God does not exist in the same sense that you or I exist. Perhaps He exists in another dimension, or his whereabouts can not yet be explained by science. Nonetheless, Anselm's claim that God exists is both unlikely and illogical.
	Anselm's definition for God entails an infinite being who is incapable of improvement. The implications of this definition raise numerous issues which prove the ontology's invalidity. Rather, a more likely argument for the existence of God would rely on both philosophical and empirical justifications. A final scenario is that God can neither be proven or denied, either ontologically or empirically. Thus, individuals must decide based on faith whether God exists. This raises a noteworthy question as to whether faith is a 
legitimate basis for belief.