Anselm's ontological argument

Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God is written by his philosophy of Fides Quarens Intellectum which translates to Faith Seeking Understanding. This means that Anselm's argument begins from a theistic stance, with the aim to further establish and validify God's existence using deductive reasoning to highlight how an absence of belief is foolish, rather than seeking to prove his existence to those which don't believe in him. Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 begin with the line "The Fool says in his heart 'There is no God'". Anselm's Ontological Argument provides a possible explanation as to why it is foolish to state that there is no God.
The argument begins with defining God; "that than which nothing greater can be concieved". This means that God is the greatest concievable being and it is therefore impossible for anyone to imagine anything greater. Anselm infers that we all have this idea of God in our minds, and we know what the definition of God is. As it is greater to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone, God must therefore exist. This argument can be used to suggest why it is foolish to state "there is no God" as it explains how the statement itself proves that the speaker has a concept of God and is aware that they are referring to "something" specific by using the word 'God'. By admitting you have the concept of God in your mind (regardless of whether or not you claim to believe in him) and the definition of God being the greatest possible being, he must therefore exist in reality as well as just the mind.

Gaunilo criticises this version of Anselm's argument in his thesis entitled 'On Behalf of the Fool'. Gaunilo argues that you cannot simply define things into existence. He states how "An object can hardly or never be conceived according to the word alone" meaning that just because we can conceive the word 'God' to mean 'greatest conceivable being', it doesn't have to mean that he exists. To explain this further Gaunilo uses an analogy of an island to replicate and essentially parody Anselm's argument through replacing the word God with island:

• My island is the island than which no greater island can be conceived
• I have an idea of my island
• It it greater to exist in reality than in concept
• Therefore my island exists

In doing this, Gaunilo uses reductio ad absurdum to show the flaws in Anselm's original argument, as clearly - the island does not exist in reality. Gaunilo's argument concludes his point that just because a person is capable of conceiving of something, it doesn't mean it exists.

Anselm responds to Gaunilo with the claim that using an island in place of God is an unfair comparison. Infact, anything would be an unfair comparison as God is necessary (doesn't rely on anything to exist) and existence is therefore part of his essence, whereas everything else in the world is contingent (relies on something else to exist) and therefore may or may not exist. In order to take this into account and make it clearer, Anselm revised his argument and produced a second version.

Anselm begins with the same premise, that nothing greater than God can be conceived. He continues by saying that a God who cannot be thought of as not existing is greater than a God who can be thought of as not existing. In other words, a necessary God is greater than a contingent God, as a necessary God must exist by definition whereas a contingent God could be thought of as either existing or not existing. Anselm deduces from this that if God exists in the mind alone then he is not God, as he would not be necessary and subsequently would not be the greatest being. Therefore, he concludes, God can't not exist i.e God exists.

I've started reading Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard which I think is going to link well with the topic of evil and suffering. I'm finding some of the language and how it's laid out a bit hard to understand but I think it will start to be easier as I keep reading. The beginning of the book tells the story of Abraham who is asked by God to sacrifice his son Isaac in order to prove his faith. When Abraham is about to carry out with the sacrifice, God calls out to him and tells him that he doesn't need to harm his son as he has proven his faith through being willing to do it. After reading this I did some research into the story and found the original passage. In my opinion the story is one of the more controversial bible stories as it depicts a God who is willing to trick his followers and risk their happiness which goes against the idea of an omnibenevolent God. In Fear and Trembling Abraham is described as (before preparing to sacrifice Isaac) pretending to Isaac that he is not his father and is sacrificing him because he wants to, not because it is God's will. He is written as thinking 'Lord in heaven I thank Thee; it is after all better that he believe I am a monster than he lose faith in Thee'. This variation on the story suggests that Abraham himself is aware that the action God is requesting he carry out is immoral and wrong, and that if Isaac or others become aware that it it's God's will then their eyes will be opened to his true nature which isn't that of an all loving God. Stories such as this exist in the Bible, along with the story of Job and others which hint at God being willing to  make a bet with the devil, trick his followers, make them ill, kill their children and lose their friends simply in order for them to further prove their faith to him seemingly contradict the fact that the God of Abraham is defined as omnibenevolent, however accepting that he isn't infact all-loving provides a possible explanation as to why he allows so much evil and suffering in the world.