Reposted from:

The Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is the most philosophical of the arguments for the existence of God. It was formulated by the Christian Anselm (1033-1109) and taken up by the French philosopher Descartes (1596-1650). Its basic assertion is that God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived; a perfect, complete being that lacks no attributes. This is a being that exists in the mind.

But a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists in the mind, and since God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived, he must exist in reality, therefore he exists. Further, since we are able to conceive of such a being, and cannot have a conception of a non-existent being, then this, too, proves he must exist: lacking no attributes, he is bound to have the attribute of existence.

Immanuel Kant, the eighteenth-century philosopher, contested this argument, claiming that existence is not sufficient as an attribute to make something concrete. I can think of the existence of a fortune in my bank account, but that doesn't mean to say that it is really there! I can combine the attributes of redness and lion to conceive of a red lion, but that doesn't mean one exists. In saying that a lion exists, the word exists is not an attribute, for it is lion that tells us of the nature of the thing that exists that is a lion.

Thus, to say that we can think of a perfect being, therefore it exists, is fallacious. Additionally, to claim that God is perfect because he is not lacking in attributes is suggestive, not only of positive attributes, but also of some pretty negative things one can say about God! The ontological argument is a circular one, assuming the premise that it tries to prove is true, and we simply cannot prove that a being, greater than which we cannot conceive, really exists.