The Ontological Argument

An argument of two halves

An argument of two halves ...

Learning Objectives  To know the two halves of Anselm’s ontological argument  To understand why he felt that it was impossible to NOT accept that God exists

What do we know so far?

 TTWNGCBC  Existence is a property  It is greater to exist than not exist  The greatest possible being must be great in every possible way  And that includes existing

Who’s the greatest?

Love Power Knowledge Existence

GOD

10/10 10/10 10/10 0/10

ZOG

7/10 9/10 5/10 10/10

A word about

Proslogion

 Argument for the existence of God or a prayer to God  Devout exploration of faith  Doesn’t only offer argument for existence  Also the attributes of God

TTWNGCBC



“Aliquid quo nihil maius possibit”

 God is a being that cannot be improved upon. To think of a greater being means that being is God.

To sum up

 If God exists in the mind only (

in intellectu

) alone then a greater being could exist in both the mind and reality (

in re

)

Proslogion 2

 “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Ps 14:1; 53:1)  Contradiction of the atheist  The fool understands the claim that God exists  Does not believe that God exists

It all boils down to ...

 Anyone who claims to understand what it means to say that God exists must have knowledge of God  Whatever is understood

must

understanding exist in the

The painter

 In Proslogion 2 Anselm uses the following illustration    The painter knows what he is going to paint before he paints it It exists in his understanding When he paints it it then exists in his understanding and in reality

Be careful

 Anselm is NOT saying ‘because I think of God he must exist’  ‘Anselm IS saying: ‘It is when I think of him I realise the necessity of God’s existence. Existence imposes itself on my thoughts – rather than my thoughts imposing existence of God’

Reductio ad absurdum

Argument  Suppose God only exists in one’s understanding  Then God could be greater by existing in reality  This means that a greater God is possible – one that exists in reality

Reductio as absurdum

 This means that a greater God is possible – one that exists in reality  A contradiction of the definition of God?

 Therefore the opposite conclusion must be true

Reductio as absurdum

 Anselm has faith in the existence of God  Logic tells us that it would be absurd to think otherwise

2

nd

part of Anselm’s argument

 Existence alone is not enough: that would make God like us  God’s existence is

necessary

God’s necessary existence

 Nothing greater than God can be conceived  It is greater to exist as a

necessary being

a

contingent being

than  If God exists only as a contingent being then a greater being can be imagined: a necessary being  This necessary being would be greater than God  Therefore God must be a necessary being and exist in reality

God’s necessary existence

 God is a being with necessary existence  “What art thou, then, Lord God, than whom nothing greater can be conceived?

 The difference between the fool and the believer

Gaunilo’s Lost Island

To recap

 Existence is a perfection  It is better to exist

in re

than

in intellectu

 According to Anselm you CANNOT truthfully say God doesn’t exist in reality  A contradiction  God as understood hypothetically must have every possible perfection

To recap

 An

a priori

argument  God’s existence is tied up with the concept of him  Cannot have the concept of God without being compelled to accept his existence  Cannot deny his existence without having the concept of him  One cannot be an atheist without contradiction

To recap

 The fool has thought what cannot be thought  His thinking is incoherent and self contradictory  He only knows the word God, not God himself  That God exists is

true by definition

What are these?

Do Hobbits exist?

So what do we know?

1.

2.

3.

We all know what a Hobbit is.

Hobbits don’t exist.

Hobbits are a fictional species created in the 20 th century by JRR Tolkien.

 Can we apply Anselm’s logic to this?

Gaunilo of Marmoutiers

 11 th century Benedictine Monk  Thesis: ‘In Behalf of the Fool’  Anselm’s argument fails because the same kind of logic would force you to conclude that many things exist which certainly do not.

Anselm’s argument

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

God is that being than which no greater can be conceived.

It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

If God does not exist, we can conceive of an even greater being,

that is

one that

does

exist.

Therefore, God must indeed exist in reality.

Therefore, He exists.

Gaunilo’s argument

1.

2.

3.

4.

The Lost Island is that island than which no greater can be conceived.

It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

If the Lost Island does not exist, we can conceive of an even greater island,

that is

one that

does

exist.

Therefore, the Lost Island must indeed exist in reality.

And the problem?

 The Lost Island does not exist, even though the logical argument claims that it does.

 So can we trust Anselm’s version?

Criticisms of Gaunilo

 Look at the description of the island  The more riches and delicacies it has the better it is  No maximum amount of these that an island can have  Therefore it will ALWAYS be possible to imagine a greater island  Therefore the concept of a ‘perfect’ island is incoherent – there can be no such thing

Plantinga and Gaunilo

 The concept of TTWNGCBC does not apply to an island in the same way as it applies to God  Anselm’s argument ONLY applies to God  A necessary being  The greatest conceivable  The greatest possible

Returning to Hobbits

 If we have a concept of Hobbits does that mean they have to exist?

 Existence is not a characteristic of a Hobbit  Hobbits are not TTWNGCBC  It doesn’t matter if they don’t exist because they aren’t considered to be the greatest

Misconceptions

 Remember  Thought ≠ existence  Existence = thought  God exists because we can conceive him?

 Hobbits exist because we can conceive them?

Homework

 Q4-5 on the sheet

Descartes Argument

Rene Descartes

 1596-1650  Set out his argument in his

Meditations

 Pondered on the nature of existence 

Cogito ergo sum

 Doubted he knew anything  Then realised that the ONLY thing he could know was that he was thinking  Concluded

I think, therefore I am

Rene Descartes

 Defined God as

a supremely perfect being

 From here tried to prove God’s existence ...

Rene Descartes’ argument

 Because God is a supremely perfect being he possesses all perfections  This perfect state includes existence, which is a perfection in itself. Existence is a predicate of a perfect being 

Therefore God exists

Objects and predicates

 There are some things an object must have to be that object  Triangle must have three sides  Bachelors must be unmarried  And so God must have existence  It is inconceivable any other way!

What is his argument?

1.

Whatever belongs to the essence of something cannot be denied of it 2.

God’s essence includes existence; therefore 3.

Existence must be affirmed by God

Descartes clarification

1.

2.

3.

The argument cannot be applied to objects affected by time and space.

It can only apply to something that is perfect Only God can have absolute perfection – there cannot be two absolutes  Take THAT, Gaunilo!

Descartes on the existence of God

  To deny the existence of God is as absurd as saying ‘the existing such and such does not exist’ (Mackie)  All other arguments to establish the existence of things – unicorns (Russell), Hobbits (Maltby(!)) – try to establish the necessary existence of contingent objects Only an absolute perfect being can have the necessary existence

Quick quiz

 Which is correct a) b) c) TTWNCBC TTWNGCBC TTWNGCBG

Quick quiz

 The first of Anslem’s arguments is?

Quick quiz

 The second of Anslem’s arguments is?

Quick quiz

 What role do triangles play in Descartes’ version argument?

Quick quiz

 Why did Anselm say that Gaunilo had failed to understand him?

Baseline assessment

 Analyse the reasoning of the ontological argument as presented by Anselm, and explain its purpose.

AO1 – 30 marks  “Gaunilo presents a convincing counter argument to Anselm” To what extent do you agree with this claim AO2 – 20 marks

Objections - 1

Objections

 There are three main objections  The definition of God  The use of existence as a predicate of God  The possibility of deriving existence from claims of definition

Definitions of God

 Define the God of classical theism  Okay, how do you know that you are right?  What else could God be like?

Aquinas

 No certainty that the human mind has the correct concept of God  He is beyond human understanding  Our mere ideas cannot prove his existence  Existence of God is not self-evident  Even if we do have an idea it is confused

‘God is man’s beatitude’

 Supreme blessedness or happiness  We naturally desire this happiness  What we desire must be known to us  Doesn’t mean we know God

To explain more ...

 To know that SOMEONE is approaching  Not the same as knowing that PETER is approaching  We know that man desires happiness  But what is happiness?

 Different for different people

Aquinas

 God is beyond human understanding  What type of argument is his cosmological argument?

 What type of argument is the ontological argument?

 A priori arguments to prove God fail  Because we cannot define God  Know him through his work

Aquinas

 ‘the greatest’  ‘the most perfect being’  Are these meaningful?

 Are they quantifiable?

 Greatness and perfection can always be added to.

 Remind you of something?

Would Anselm ever agree?

 What is

Proslogion?

 Intellectual argument to prove the existence of God?

 Prayer to aid faith?

Hume

 Twofold objections 1.

2.

Cannot take an idea in your mind, apply logic to it, and reach a conclusion based on the external, observable universe.

Like Kant existence cannot be treated as a predicate

Objection 1

 We base our lives around what we can observe rather than rationally prove.

 We know the sun rises: how do we know that?

 We cannot prove anything

a priori

 So does Hume have a point?

Objection 2

 The description of a thing can contain every possible detail  To determine if something exists we must go BEYOND the description  A thing cannot be ‘defined into existence’  Assumed perfection cannot be proof of existence

A2 essay demands

 Scholarly opinion  Differing views  Independent thought  But how to actually go about doing it?

P

QRS!

 P = Point  Make your point  In a form that an inquisitive grandparent would understand.

 ONE POINT AT A TIME  Deal with it before introducing another one structure

P

Q

RS

 Q = Quotation  Ideally from the original  Ideally short and punchy  Use a term / word / phrase that wouldn’t be used by an amateur

PQ

R

S

 R = Response  The main bit of the paragraph  Show evidence of diversity of views  ‘Critics such as Hume have posited that ...’  Create links with other parts of the course  Including from AS

PQR

S  S = Semi-conclusion  Make sure you’ve explained YOUR position in the light of the careful analysis you’ve just done  Remember the independent thought requirement  Make sure you refer to the specific question that was asked

Analyse the reasoning of the OA

 P QRS  Anselm claims that the logic of his argument indicates that an atheist cannot be an atheist without contradicting themselves.

Analyse the reasoning of the OA

 P Q RS  “the fool ... Understands what he hears ... although he does not understand it to exist”

Analyse the reasoning of the OA

 PQ R S  What did Anselm mean?

 Example of understanding a concept without accepting existence  Does anyone disagree with him?

 Would this logic and reasoning persuade an atheist to convert?

Analyse the reasoning of the OA

 PQR S  What do you think? Careful of wording in an AO1 question  Is the reasoning logical?

 Does Anselm succeed in putting forward a good argument?

 Remember to refer back to the question!

Objections - 2

The use of existence as a predicate of God

 Key players  Kant  Russell

Starter

OBJECT Snow Fire An even number A bachelor A duffle coat A person God KEY FEATURE

Kant’s objections

 Mainly aimed at Descartes  The argument claims that existence is a perfection  That existence adds something to the essence of God  That it is a predicate

What is a predicate?

 Something that adds to the property of a subject  Every complete sentence contains a subject and a predicate  John laughed  Peter walks the dog  The audience littered the floor with torn wrappings and spilled popcorn

Why did Kant NOT think existence was a predicate?

 When we talk about something we assume it exists.

 I have a coat. It is red  I have a coat. It exists and it is red.

 Existence is assumed  Saying that the coat exists doesn’t tell us anything additional about the coat.

Kant’s main objection

 A predicate should add to our understanding of an object/person

Existence does not add anything to the essence of God

Sounds odd?

 Can we really say that existence does not add anything to our understanding of an object?

 Not a property that you can ascribe to a thing alongside other properties

So ...

 ... existence is not  a predicate  or a perfection (who said it was?)  If we were to describe our concept of God and then add ‘and he exists’ we would not have gained any extra knowledge or deepened our understanding of the concept of God

Really?

 Yes!

 A God that exists might be more

useful

than one that doesn’t exist  But knowing that he exists doesn’t add to the essence of God  Which is what a predicate does  What are the predicates of God?

So where does that leave the ontological argument?

 Dead in the water, you could say!

 If existence is not a perfection or a predicate:  Ontological argument gives no reason for God to exist.

 What do you think?

Existence as a synthetic proposition

 What is a synthetic proposition?

 Predicate is not contained in the statement  More work must be done  Jane is a spinster

Existence as a synthetic proposition

 God cannot be placed in a separate category to everything else  What does Anselm say about this?

 Gives a synthetic proposition the status of an analytical proposition  Assertion is contained within the definition  All spinsters are unmarried  A square is a four-sided figure with equal sides

Existence as a synthetic proposition

 It is always possible to contradict existence as a property of a thing  Therefore they are synthetic propositions

To sum up (Kant)

 Existence is not a predicate  Existence is not a perfection  Existence does not add to our understanding of an object  Anselm tries to turn a synthetic proposition into an analytical one

The meaning of ‘exist’ - Russell

 If existence were a predicate you would get the following

syllogism

 Men exist in the world  Santa Claus is a man  Therefore Santa Claus exists Valid ... but ...

Syllogism – deductive argument moving from the general to the specific

Why is it wrong?

 Men exist in the world  Santa Claus is a man Misuse of this word  Therefore Santa Claus exists Santa is fictional – belongs to a separate category to the men in the first proposition

So what IS existence

 According to Russell  Not a property of things, but the idea of those things

Russell’s example

We have the idea of what the word ‘dragons’ means  ‘Dragons do not exist’ Of all the things that exist a dragon is not one of them  ‘A cow is a quadruped with udders etc’ The fact that a cow exists is an extension to the description, not part of the description

Intention and extension

 Puts the ontological argument in different terms  Intention of a phrase  The description arrived at through labelling and defining something  TTWNGCBC  The totality of everything that can be conceived my the human mind about God  But does it have an extension (can I add to it)?

Intention and extension

 TTWNGCBC  Totality of ideas  But no evidence to prove the existence

To sum up (Russell)

 Existence cannot be a predicate  Existence is not a property of things, but the idea of things  Russell supports Anselm’s claim that God is the greatest thing we can think of  Does not support Anselm’s belief that this proves God’s existence

First and second order predicates

 Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)  First order predicates  Apply direction to objects  John’s horses are brown  All cats are mammals  Provide information about the relation of two concepts  Whatever falls under the concept of a cat is a mammal

First and second order predicates

 Second order predicates  Apply to first order predicates and not to the object itself  Mammals exist  Cats exist  Not about any particular mammal or cat but about the concepts of mammals and cats

And God?

 Existence is not a first-order predicate  Does not tell us about the nature of something  Existence is not a second-order predicate  Does not add to our understanding of the concept  Therefore existence cannot be used as a predicate to prove the existence of God.

Objections - 3

Objections based on the possibility of deriving existence claims from definition  Key players  J.L. Mackie  Elisabeth Anscombe  Brian Davies

J.L. Mackie

 Atheist is NOT contradicting himself  Anselm is making a mistake by claiming existence is a predicate of greatness  TTWNGCBC certainly suggests this  In order to be maximally great the being must exist in order to meet the terms of its definition  Mackie’s claim is that just because we can think of something doesn’t mean it exists

Elisabeth Anscombe



Proslogion

argument is NOT an ontological  It never states that existence is a predicate  Where did this idea come from if it wasn’t from Anselm?

 Where does this leave Mackie?

 (Just because we can think of something doesn’t mean it exists)

Elisabeth Anscombe

 2 translations of

Proslogion

1.

2.

‘And surely, that than which no greater can be conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it exists solely in the mind, it can be thought to exist in reality also, which is greater .’ Implies existence is a predicate of greatness ‘And surely, that than which no greater can be conceived cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it is only in the mind, what is greater can be thought to be in reality as well .’ Implies that something is better if it exists in the mind and reality

Brian Davies

 Criticises the use of the word ‘is’  “A pixie is a little man with pointed ears. Therefore, there actually exists a pixie”  Does a pixie have to exist in order to have pointed ears?

 How does this relate to Anselm’s argument?

Brian Davies

 Use of the word ‘is’ 1.

Definition:

A queen is a female monarch

Says nothing about existence – says nothing about an existent queen Does explain what a queen is 2.

To explain that there actually is something:

There is such a thing as a vampire

Also says nothing about existence However it does

implicitly

suppose its existence

Brian Davies

 Norman Malcolm argues for a God with necessary existence  His error, according to Davies  Goes from definition of God as a being with necessary existence  To explain that there IS a being with necessary existence

Brian Davies

 To sum up ...

 The ontological argument helps with a definition of God – TTWNGCBC  It doesn’t prove that the being with this definition exists

Modern versions

Key players

 Norman Malcolm (1911-1990)  Alvin Plantinga (1932-)  Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000)

Norman Malcolm

 Disagrees with objections of Russell and Davies  Considers it a logical argument to prove existence of God

Norman Malcolm

 Could not support Anselm’s first argument  Not valid as existence is not a characteristic  Supported Anselm’s second argument  Concept of God is concept of a being whose existence is necessary  It is not possible to think of a being that necessarily exists, not existing  Therefore, Malcolm argues, God must exist

Norman Malcolm

 Argues that the only reason why a greatest conceivable being wouldn’t exist would be because the concept named something whose existence was impossible.

 Anselm is talking about an impossible God or a necessary being  Therefore if God is possible then God exists

Alvin Plantinga

 Developed the modal ontological argument  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRq HZRP68

Possible worlds

 Plantinga developed the philosophical notion of possible worlds  In each there will be many differences  The possibilities are infinite

Maximal greatness & maximal existence

 There is a possible world, W, in which there exists a being of ‘maximal greatness’  A being has maximal greatness only if it exists in every possible world  So, is he talking about God?

Maximal greatness & maximal existence

 Just says that a maximally great being has to be present in every possible world  Has not defined what that being is  Does not say it is the God of classical theism

Maximal greatness & maximal existence

 Introduces the concept of maximal excellence  Maximal greatness entails maximal excellence  Maximal excellence entails omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection

Maximal greatness & maximal existence

 Therefore …  There is a possible world in which there is a being that is maximally great  If maximally great, this being exists in our world  This being has maximal excellence, as this is entailed within maximal greatness  This means that there is an ‘omnis’ and morally perfect being in our world  Therefore there IS a God

Maximal greatness & maximal existence

 So can we say for certain that God exists?

 Davies would say ‘no’  Even if maximal excellence

is

possible it does not follow that such a being exists  God is

possible

but not

actual

Plantinga and Gaunilo

 Can you remember what Plantinga said in defence of Anselm?

 Islands are contingent  God is eternal  Islands do not have ‘intrinsic maximum’

What does he have to say?

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVc WFrGQ&noredirect=1

Charles Hartshorne

 Whether existence is a property  Argues that one aspect of Anselm’s argument is ignored  Existence is used differently in his two arguments  Existence is not

always

a property but that doesn’t mean it

never

is

Charles Hartshorne

 God as a necessary being  Existence IS a property  If he is necessary he is greater than contingent beings  If to have necessary existence means he must always exist it is logically impossible for him

not

to exist  Therefore God exists

And so …

 … we reach the end of the ontological argument   Next … the issues arising  Does it have value for the non-believer?

 Does it successfully challenge belief in God?

 How successful is the argument as proof of God’s existence  Would the success or failure of this argument have any significance for faith?

Relationship between faith and reason

Is the OA helpful?

 Does it do anything other than helping to define God?

 TTWNGCBC  Does this definition convince atheists or agnostics of the existence of God?

 What does belief in God depend on?

Starter – Faith versus Reason

 Which of the statements are dependent on faith and which depend on reason

Not helpful to faith

 It is possible to think of a non-existent God. – argument against OA  How does Gaunilo demonstrate this?

 A fool CAN have an understanding of God even if he doesn’t exist – the lost island

Helpful to faith

 Anselm – what is the purpose of his argument from HIS point of view  To take people beyond the definition of the word ‘God’ to knowledge of God, himself.

 Does he succeed in doing this?

 If he does then the OA IS helpful to faith

Faith, reason, and the OA

 Write a definition of faith and a definition of reason  Does the OA raise valid reasons for believing in God?

 Is faith grounded in reason or is reason governed by faith?

Anselm’s view

 They aid each other in understanding God  Reason alone can lead to error  Must be supported by faith  Greater understanding can only be achieved through faith

Anselm’s view

 “Nor do I seek to understand so that I can believe (intelligere ut credam), but rather I believe so that I can understand (credo ut intelligam). For I believe this too, that ‘unless I believe I shall not understand’”

Proslogion 1

Your view

 Does a definition of God depend more on faith than understanding of the word? Why?

The appeal of the OA

 Anselm already believes in God  Not providing a logical argument to convince people  However it DOES appeal to logic and reason “I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco, and was going back with it, along Trinity Lane, when I suddenly threw it up in the air and exclaimed: “Great God in Boots! – the ontological argument is sound!”

Russell

The appeal of the OA

 Russell: through logical reasoning it appears that a being with necessary existence MUST exist  So why is he against the argument?

 When considering the argument further we realise that having the definition does not make God exist

So when IS it helpful?

 A valid argument that God’s existence is necessary  If a triangle must have three sides, then God must exist  Helps develop a believer’s understanding of God  Strengthen their belief  Further reason to praise God

Limited significance to believer

 Successful  Only provides an alternative way of confirming faith  Why only an ‘alternative  Fails  Does nothing to take away faith  Why not?

Agnostics and atheists

 Theoretically God is possible (by definition)  Having the concept does not make him a reality for agnostics and atheists  Some claim it only works for existing believers and will not persuade non believers that God exists

Agnostics and atheists

 Why did Kant and Russell believe it is not a good argument?

 Question validity of statements such as:  “God must exist because he is a supremely perfect being”  OA is a misleading argument

Has existing faith Have no existing faith

The Enlightenment

 Religious belief must be supported by reason for it to be viewed as rational  Could this be a reason for renewed interest in the OA from Kant/Hume onwards?

Fideism

 Remember this?

 “exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone”  A fideist is someone who “urges reliance on faith rather than reason in matters philosophical and religious” - Plantinga

Faith may be the only proof

 Karl Barth (1886-1968)  Denied the possibility of attaining any knowledge of God through the use of reason 

Fides Quaerens Intellectu

Understanding) (Faith Seeking  Supports view that Anselm didn’t intend to prove the existence of God

Faith may be the only proof

 TWNGCBC  Not the start of an argument  A description by a believer of what is understood about God within the limits of the human mind  If we had the mental capacity to understand God and prove his existence faith would not be necessary

Faith may be the only proof

 Anselm’s 2 nd argument  A statement of faith  Without God then humans and the world in which they live would not exist  Cannot apply these comments to Descartes version of the OA  Descartes WAS seeking to present an argument using reason to prove the existence of God

What would Descartes say?

 Attempting to give a logical argument  Required proof of God to justify his rationalistic approach to knowledge and certainty

Søren Kierkegaard

 1813-1855  Misconceived and ridiculous to attempt to use reason to determine existence of God  “For the fool says in his heart that there is no God, but he who says in his heart or to others: just wait a little and I shall demonstrate it …What a superb theme for crazy comedy”

Build an essay

 “The ontological argument is a statement of faith and not reason” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

The OA and faith

Two main concerns

1.

Can the OA weaken faith?

2.

The failure of the argument to strengthen faith.

Could the OA weaken faith?

 If your belief is based on belief rather than proven fact then could the OA be damaging to faith?

 God could be proven without a shadow of a doubt  Faith is redundant  Re-evaluation of relationship between God and humans

Anti-realism

 A theory of truth  The truth or falsity of a statement does not depend on whether it corresponds to the objective reality it describes  It corresponds to the situation as a person understands it  Eh????

Anti-realism

 A theory of truth  The truth or falsity of a statement does not on whether it corresponds to the objective reality it describes  It corresponds to the situation as a person understands it  Eh????

Anti-realism and God

 Does God exist?

 Depends: do you understand there to be such a being?

 Does NOT depend on whether there is or is not an objectively existing omnipotent being  Religious believers are totally justified in saying that he exists

Anti-realism and God

 Summing up anti-realism and the OA  Talk of God makes sense to those who already believe  Talk of God for non-believers makes no sense  Shows that God is not a thing to be verified empirically, but an idea that has value and meaning within a religious community

Implication for the OA

 IF you are religious:  God must exist by definition  Why?

 Because they understand him to exist  Merely to believe in God guarantees that God exists

Iris Murdoch

 OA may not objective proof for the existence of God  Does have great value for a believer  Shows that it is rational to hold such beliefs  Teaches us to think about our own meta-cognition  Teaches us to think about how we think

Iris Murdoch

 The OA has anti-realist meaning  Meaningful to the individual or group who understand what the definition of God means  Rugby players understand the off-side  Vardy claims that this is what Anselm intended it to be

To sum up

 If the statement TTWNGCBC is said prayerfully to God by a religious believer:  By definition God exists  Written by a believer as a prayer  Therefore it is successful  However it cannot tell us whether this definition of God corresponds to any objective reality beyond the mind of the believer

Failure to strengthen faith

 Does not appear to convert an atheist  Dawkins  It has no significance for faith  Picks up on points made by Douglas Gasking  Possible to believe in a being more powerful than one with necessary existence – which does not exist and yet created everything  Different concepts of TTWNGCBC

Failure to strengthen faith

 Dawkins  Gasking exist doesn’t prove that God does not  In the same way, neither does Anselm prove that he does

To conclude

 Helps to establish what the monotheistic religions say about God  Establishes that he is ‘omni’, transcendent, and the summary of all perfection  Shows that the relationship between God and humans is more dependent on faith  Aid to those who already have faith  Anselm ‘faith seeking understanding’

THE END