In order to provide evidence that God exists, The Ontological Argument was created by Anselm. The main idea that Anselm had in his argument was to prove that God is the best possible being. Anselm’s theory of the Ontological Argument has been simplified into the following argument: “1.) God is by definition the greatest being possible. 2.) A being who fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in other possible worlds) is less perfect than a being who exists in all possible worlds. Therefore, God exists, necessarily (Sober pg.94, 2013)”. In his book Core Questions in Philosophy, Elliott Sober argues that the Ontological Argument is invalid. To support his claims, Sober rephrases Anselm’s argument by using conceivability and possibility and the definition of necessary existence to support his claim against Anselm. Sober also mentions criticism of Anselm’s theory from other philosophers, such as Gaunilo, who will use Anselm’s template to define a perfect island by introducing the idea of an a priori argument, and Immanuel Kant, who discusses the idea that existence is not a predicate. The importance behind Sober’s argument is to show that the Ontological Argument is not a valid argument that would prove the existence of God. I will therefore defend Sober’s argument by proving that the Ontological Argument has its flaws, which can be fatal towards the validity of Anselm’s argument.
Sober began to analyze Anselm’s theory starting by explaining Anselm’s first premises. Sober did not think that God was the most perfect being that could hypothetically exist in the actual world itself. The actual world itself has people and objects that could be defined as “imperfect”, which would explain that the being God is the best among all beings. However, this is flawed because the idea that God would be the best among all living things and objects does not necessarily mean that he, himself is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good (Sober, pg. 94, 2013).
Sober argues that Anselm may have confused the terms of conceivability and possibility. The ideas that are conceived may vary from person to person based on previous knowledge. The possibility of an event occurring may vary person to person is possibly an open-ended topic, since you do not need to have knowledge on the subject in question.
An example Sober mentions is Newton’s theory on motion. Newton believed that traveling faster than the speed of light was a possibility. In this scenario, Newton not only could conceive the idea that traveling the speed of light, he also thought that this theory was possible. For an event or idea to be possible, it may not be enough that an individual can conceive of the idea of an event or idea happening or not being able to see a reason as to why it cannot occur.
Another premise that Sober introduces to the argument is the concept behind necessary existence. In Anselm’s argument, he establishes the idea that if a being exists in all possible worlds, then that being is necessary, not contingent. In Anselm’s perspective, it shows that God does not have to rely on other things to exist, it would have to exist unconditionally. With Anselm’s theory on God being all knowing, powerful and good, he would be considered having a necessary existence in all possible worlds. Based off of Anselm’s second premise “A being who fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in other possible worlds) is less perfect than a being who exists in all possible worlds”, a necessary being is more powerful than a contingent one, a being that exist only because of other contingent being’s actions. How can one prove that God is a necessary being?
Outside of Sober’s argument, he mentions criticism from another philosopher, Gaunilo. Gaunilo expresses the idea that you could use the template of Anselm’s argument into an a priori argument by proving the existence of the perfect island. The template used shows Gaunilo’s argument of the perfect island: “1.) A perfect island is by definition the greatest possible island. 2.) An island that fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in all possible worlds) is less perfect than an island that exists in all possible worlds. Therefore, a perfect island exists necessarily (Sober, pg.96 2013).” Although Gaunilo agrees that the premises in the island argument are true, it does not mean that the conclusion of the argument exists, the perfect island based off of an a priori premise; which would make the perfect island argument invalid. If you also applied this to the existence of God theory by Anslem, it would also conclude that the argument is invalid.
You can also use the template of Anselm’s argument to determine the existence of other objects. For example, you can try to prove the perfect existence of the perfect burrito by using the following premises: 1.) A perfect burrito is by definition the greatest possible burrito. 2.) A burrito that fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in all possible worlds) is less perfect than a burrito that exists in all possible worlds. Therefore, the perfect burrito exists necessarily. Although you can think of the qualities of what would make the perfect burrito, it does not mean that the perfect burrito exists necessarily.
Another form of criticism similar to determining the existence of something was made by a philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant makes an objection to the Ontological Argument, saying that existence is not a property: a thing that something can possess or lack. Saying something similar to the phrase of “There is a God because he has the property of existence” would be considered invalid because God would lack the property of existence. In order to apply more to Kant’s example, think of an object that is in your daily life, such as a whiteboard eraser. The color, shape and texture properties of the eraser apply characteristics to the eraser. Now, try to add the property of existence to the eraser. Did existence change the appearance of that eraser? Of course not. Based on that observation, existence could not be considered as a predicate.
Based off of the evidence provided by Sober, it can be concluded that Anselm’s Ontological Theory is invalid. There may be a more valid argument regarding the existence of God, but this argument is not strong enough to defend it.
Some broad concerns regarding Sober against the Ontological Argument is his use of the term contingency and the criticism from Gaunilo’s lack of specificity, which I will discuss later in the objections section of this analysis. Contingency has multiple definitions. Contingency can be defined as 1). Existing in some, but not all possible worlds or 2). Existence is conditioned on something else, it is dependent on something else to make it exist, for example mammals.
Contingency could either help or worsen Sober’s argument against Anselm. The first definition that was mentioned of contingency could be fatal towards Sober’s argument against Anselm. In Anselm’s argument, it is stated that a being who fails to exist in the actual world (while existing in all possible worlds) is less perfect than a being who exists in all possible worlds. Now, imagine if the said God existed in the actual world, he did not have to rely on other beings to exist, which would therefore make Sober’s theory fatal.
The second definition of contingency that was mentioned can help Sober with his argument against Anselm by putting emphasis on Kant’s objection to the Ontological Predicate. The example that was used earlier, the whiteboard eraser, depended on other beings for it to come in existence. If it is interpreted that Sober used this definition of contingency in his writing, then his argument will not be at risk.
According the evidence provided by Sober, the premises logically support the conclusion that Anselm’s argument is invalid. In order to confirm the soundness of Sober’s premises, I extended my research on existence not being a predicate, which was a major claim in the criticism he had with The Ontological Argument.
Based off of his work in How Is the Question ‘Is Existence a Predicate? Relevant to The Ontological Argument, J. William Forgie claims that the Ontological Argument treats existence as a first-level predicate, also known as a property. Just to reiterate, existence is not a property. In his article, Forgie speaks of a philosopher named Gassendi, who made the argument that existence is not a property, a similar idea to Kant. In order to support his claim, Gassendi constructed the following argument: “1). If existence were a property, something lacking existence would be lacking a property. 2), But existence is necessary for anything to have or lack any properties. 3). So, something lacking existence cannot lack any properties. Therefore, existence itself is not a property (Forgie, pg. 120, 2008).” Forgie does mention Kant’s theory about existence not being a “real predicate”. In Kant’s work, Der einzig mögliche Bewisgrund zu einer Demonstration des Daseins Gottes, Kant adds the claim that existence cannot be included in the concept of a simple possible object. Kant in his theory uses the concept God may have had of Julius Caesar before creating the world and of Caesar himself. Forgie states in theory for his example, “If existence were included in God’s procreation concept of Caesar, then God would no longer know Caesar as a merely possible being (Forgie, pg. 126, 2008).” Kant’s theory can then be simplified as the following, “(1) It is possible to have a complete concept of a merely possible being, N. (2) Existence cannot be included in a concept of a merely possible being. Therefore, if N were to exist, existence would not be one of its predicates. (Forgie, pg. 126, 2008).”
There is an objection to the use of Gaunilo’s argument by Anselm himself. Anselm makes the argument that the Ontological Argument applies to only God, the greatest being possible, therefore Gaunilo’s island argument does not apply. Anselm makes the claim that islands cannot have all possible perfections, such as intelligence (Sober, pg. 97, 2013). Sober also shows a concern about Gaunilo’s argument: the argument does show that there is a mistake in The Ontological Argument, however, Gaunilo did not specify where exactly Anselm made his mistake. In response to Anselm’s reply, Sober argues that islands can have perfections, but not all of them. The most critical part about Sober’s reply is pointing out why Anselm dropped Gaunilo’s island argument based off of validity. In Anselm’s point of view, the Ontological Argument is seen as deductively valid, while in his mind, the island theory is not valid. That would be difficult to explain because the definition of a deductively valid argument relies on the format the argument is written in, not the topic the argument is describing. The following is an argument Gaunilo came up with it to show the invalidity of Anselm’s argument: “1). If the Ontological Argument is deductively valid, then the Island Argument is deductively valid. 2). The Island Argument is not deductively valid. Therefore, The Ontological Argument is not deductively valid (Sober, pg. 97, 2013)”.
In this paper, I have discussed the Ontological Argument created by Anselm, and the claims of objection expressed by Sober. I was able to defend his objections by explicitly explaining the difference between conceivability and possibility, necessary existence, using criticism from philosopher Gaunilo, and Immanuel Kant. There were a few concerns in the argument regarding the specificity of Gaunilo’s island theory and Sober’s use of the word contingency being fatal towards his argument, but I interpreted the appropriate use of the term contingency with his view of the argument. I also discussed why Anselm’s response to Gaunilo’s theory is not appropriate by explaining how both arguments would have to either be deductively valid or not due to the format of the argument, not the actual topic itself. I also covered evidence provided by an outside source to support Kant’s claim about existence not being a property. Based off of the overwhelming evidence provided by Sober, his evidence would be fatal to Anselm’s Ontological Argument about the existence of god by simply showing a different way of interpreting conceivability and possibility. It is possible that there is a valid argument for the existence of God, but Anselm’s premises and vague reply to Gaunilo’s criticism doesn’t support the existence of God.