ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT


(premise 1:) God is that, nothing greater (or better) than which can be conceived.

(This is a definition of the term "God.")

(premise 2:) God is (or can be) conceived.

(Or, God exists in the mind.)

(premise 3:) To exist is greater (or better) than not to exist.

(Or, to exist in reality is better than to exist only in the mind.)

________

(conclusion:) God exists.


(logic:) Imagine a God0 that had every attribute that a God1 has (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.) except existence.

But by premise 3 having existence is better than not having it. So only God1, not God0, could be God according to Anselm's definition (premise 1).


Kant's criticism: existence is not a predicate (i.e., not an attribute).

Compare:

"Griffins have the body of an eagle, the head of a lion"

and

"Griffins exist."


A slightly different argument:

ANSELM'S MODAL ARGUMENT

(premise 1:) God is that, nothing greater (or better) than which can be conceived.

(premise 2:) God is (or can be) conceived. (Or, God exists in the mind.)

(premise 3:) To exist necessarily is greater (or better) than to exist contingently.

(conclusion:) God exists necessarily.

(conclusion:) God exists.