The Ontological Argument stands only to strengthen the faith of

believers.
The ontological argument, originally put forth by Anslem is on the surface an a priori
and analytical argument. It begins with the premise that God is a being than which
nothing better can be conceived. It then goes on to say that it is better to exist in
reality than just in the mind and as God is the greatest conceivable being, he must
exist both in mind and in reality. However it can be argued that this approach to Gods
existence is unable to resonate with Non-Believers, one reason being the lack of
empirical evidence that some people regard as essential in order for an argument to be
convincing.
It is important to begin with the fact that Anslem began the argument from a position
of faith seeking understanding, rather than starting from a neutral position. Anselm
said I do not seek to understand so that I may believe, but believe in order to
understand, with this in mind we can see that before even starting the argument we
can understand where his argument is going to go. This is the same problem that we
find with Descartes Ontological argument, whilst he tries to begin with a position of
doubt, just by the fact that we know he is trying to prove the existence of God we can
see that he has not truly started from this position. This can make it unconvincing for
believers and non-believers alike as it may seem that there points could be
manipulated in order to come to their conclusion. Evidence for this can be seen by the
fact that both agree that as it is better to exist in both mind and reality, God must
therefore exist, leading me on to my second point.
Whilst being very straightforward and making sense logically, many can argue that
this is not an argument that can be used to convince none believers about the existence
of God, due to the rather large jump between the idea that it is better to exist not just
in the mind but also in reality and the fact that God must then exist in reality to be the
greatest conceivable being. This leads on to a very important criticism of the
ontological argument which is put forth by Kant that says existence is not a predicate.
What this means is that the idea that God exists is not a quality that God necessarily
has, but rather could be another aspect to him and so by simply saying that it is better
to exist does not prove that God does.
The Ontological argument can also be argued to be an a posteriori argument, as it
requires a certain amount of prior knowledge about God in order to be effective.
Without this the argument cannot work as it could be possible to conceive a greater
being. For example, if I had no idea what everyone believed to be the worlds greatest
chocolate, or even what chocolate was, for me to picture the worlds greatest
chocolate would be very difficult. However having been exposed to what chocolate is
and being taught through experience what good chocolate is, it is easy for me to
conceive for myself the world's greatest chocolate. For this reason the ontological
argument is only really effective on religious believers as they have been equipped
with the knowledge necessary to understand the argument.
However, it can also be argued that the knowledge of God is something that lies
intrinsically within all people. Anselm and Descartes both shared this belief, that was
put forth first by Plato and is very similar to his theory of the forms. This is that
everyone was born with all knowledge, but due to the trauma of birth forgot all that
Yoyin Ajala 12HMR

we knew, and so when we learn things, we are just remembering what we previously
knew and this is why certain things come more naturally to people, because they
already knew it.
We can also see that this argument may not even be able to strengthen the faith of
believers, as they can also find that its conclusion cannot be drawn from its premises.
As mentioned above, Kant criticised the argument for its need to stress the importance
of Gods existence as being part of what God is. He argued that the statement God
does not exist cannot be seen as contradictory as, again, his existence is not what
makes him God. Gaunilo, a French monk, was also unconvinced by the argument. He
put forth a rebuttal, in which he swapped the use of the word God with Island.
Following Anselms logic he came to the conclusion that the island must then exist as
it is perfect, so would follow the idea that it is better to exist in mind and reality, than
just in Gaunilos mind. He then stated that if Anselms argument could be used to
prove the existence of a non-existent island, then it is flawed.
Another way that it strengthens the faith of believers is that it provides a way at
looking at God's existence without needing to go further than the perceived logic. The
argument is straight forward and rational, and so for those would a sound
understanding in what they believe God to be, it is very easy to provide evidence for
yourself for Gods existence, without the need of looking further than yourself. The
argument is only effective however, with that prior knowledge about Gods power and
having agreed that this is true, for this reason some may argue that it is in fact and a
posteriori argument as you need previous experience in order to understand it. The
ontological argument therefore, is not generally effective for those who have not been
taught about Gods power or who simply dont believe in it as they do not have the
foundation of belief that the argument relies on.
The argument can also help to strengthen faith as it allows you to also decide for
yourself what and who God is. As the idea of the greatest conceivable being is
different to different people, everyone has their idea of what God is and also what he
stands for. With this argument people are able to identify who their God is and
connect better with him as you have an idea of him in my mind and are also able to
rationalise his existence strengthening their belief in him.
We can see that whilst logical, the ontological argument is not enough to fully
convince those who do not have any belief in God as it lacks the evidence to support
its conclusion. It also does not truly stand to strengthen the belief of all believers
either. Whilst both Kant and Gaunilo both worship God, neither felt that Anselms
argument was strong enough to prove his existence. Overall we can see that whilst the
Ontological argument was enough to strengthen his own faith, it is not effective in
either proving the existence of God, or strengthening the beliefs of many others.

Yoyin Ajala 12HMR