St. Anselm Of Canterbury: An Analysis

St. Anselm of Canterbury came up with an argument which attempts to prove the existence of God by proving the apparent absurdity of the atheist opinion. Anselm contrasts the ideas of existing in the understanding and existing in reality to show that God must truly exist in reality. The earliest critic of the ontological argument is a monk from Marmoutier named Gaunilo who believed that we can use logic to prove things that we have no reason to believe to be true. Gaunilo believed that he could construct an argument with exactly the same form as the ontological argument, that proves the existence of the “perfect Island”. I do not believe that Anselm successfully rebutted Gaunilo’s Lost Island argument; Anselm didn’t come up with a substantial …show more content…
Anselm then elaborates on his argument in a number of ways. Firstly, Anselm aims to show that it is contradictory to deny that there exists a greatest possible being; in other words he aims to prove that it is a necessary truth that such a being exists. Anselm explains the contradiction further when he states, “For if this same being exists in the mind alone, anything that existed also in reality would be greater than this being, and thus that which is greater than everything would be less than something and would not be greater than everything, which is obviously contradictory.” (23) Anselm is in other words saying that it is contradictory to have that which is greater than everything to be smaller then something therefore it must exist in reality. Secondly, …show more content…
Finally, Anselm believed that there is a great difference between existing in one’s understanding and existing in reality. Anselm first distinguishes the apparent difference by providing an example involving a painter and his art when he states “For it is one thing for an object to exist in the mind, and another thing to understand that an object actually exists. Thus, when painter plans beforehand what he is going to execute, he has [the picture] in his mind, but he does not yet think that it actually exists because he has not yet executed it. However, when he has actually painted it, then he both has it in his mind and understands that it exists because he has now made it,” (25) Anselm is explaining the difference between understanding something in your mind alone (the painter thinking of his potential art) and to understand that something actually exists (the art that the painter has now executed). Anselm then goes further