1. What is St. Anselm’s distinction between existence in the understanding and existence in reality?  How does Anselm use this distinction to formulate his version of the ontological argument for the existence of God?  How does Anselm demonstrate that, necessarily, if the premises of his ontological argument are true, then God must exist in reality?

2. What is Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument?  How plausible is it?  What is Kant’s criticism of Anselm’s ontological argument?  How cogent is it? Discuss other ways in which Anselm’s ontological argument been questioned.

[1]

     I'll start with a tactic I use often, which is trying to simplify terms. (It works in math, too, but that's another ball game). Ontological is a big, 5-syllable word that means "related to being." Does something exist or not? (You could say that Shakespeare's Hamlet asks an ontological question with his famous "to be or not to be?") So- an ontological argument is simply an argument for existence...

     The actual difference between existence in the understanding and existence in reality is very basic. The first is not existence. It's merely the idea of existence. But St. Anselm (deliberately, it seems) tries to compare them as near equals in his premises. (Observing that the latter is "greater" than the former... well yes- anything is greater than nothing).

     I find St. Anselm's argument totally weak, with a self-serving twist of words and concepts that were often the case when such early theists tried to prove God. Although the text gives nine parts to his reasoning, it's already fallen apart by premise 4:

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be conceived.

2. A being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the understanding.

3. The fool [his word for atheist] understands the concept of God as the being than which none greater can be conceived.

4. Therefore, God exists in the fool's understanding. 

     No- God does not exist in the fool's/atheist's understanding! Only the concept exists there (which the atheist rejects, by the way...)

     It's a huge- in fact, an infinite difference that Anselm conveniently ignores. And therefore the rest of his argument is flawed. Anselm doesn't demonstrate anything necessarily, because his premises are not true. I'll give him credit for some nimble twists of logic- but it's just clever semantics. By relaxing the actual distinction between reality and thought, he gets a cheap shot in past the atheist.

     What amazes me is that many centuries later, Alvin Plantinga's argument, although better constructed, still makes a similar jump to conclusion at its end. 

     Just because we can define or conceive God doesn't mean he exists. And just because a theoretical God can theoretically exist in some theoretical "all possible worlds"... does not at all mean that he actually exists in this actual world! As research into part [2] of the prompt will show, we can define and conceive all sorts of entities that do not exist. Superman. Zombies. President Donald Trump...

1. By definition, Donald Trump is a candidate for President than which none unlikelier can be conceived.

2. (A candidate that exists on the ballot is greater than a candidate that exists only in a write-in vote).

3. Even a fool understands the concept of Donald Trump as a candidate than which none unlikelier can be conceived.

4. Therefore, Donald Trump exists in the fool's understanding. And the fool will vote for him.

[2]   

     Gaunilo, like St. Anselm, was a monk. His method for criticism of the latter's ontological argument was to insert a different entity (a perfect island) into the same premises- much as my parody above does with Trump. But while mine is just for fun, Gaunilo was quite serious. While his rebuttal does indeed show a weakness in Anselm's logic, Anselm and others were able to counter that the ontological argument only applies to God, and not concrete things such as islands.

     Anselm and Gaunilo were both guilty of confusing terms, and equating the concept of existence with actual existence- it's a cheat. I found an even better example than Gaunilo's, from David and Marjorie Haight, You see, it's all about replacing words in the argument, but the Haights chose an adjective instead of a noun:

1. By definition, there is a being than which none worse can be conceived... etc. and so on...

     (It's a spoof-proof that the Devil must exist, too).

     Immanuel Kant gets closer to a true refutation with his critique- observing that existence is not a quality or property. Existence just is. Gods, devils, islands, whatever... none of these can exist in the mind. Only the concepts. (And existence alone doesn't make anything that does exist special. A piece of dust exists. A rotten egg exists).

     Kant's critique is cogent enough. (But in philosophy, nothing is ever cogent enough, is it?) Later philosophers have, and will, continue to try and prove the ontological argument. S&B mention the Anselm-Malcolm addendum, which starts going into such wordplay as "a being whose nonexistence is inconceivable." This is the idea of God as a necessary being.

     I take this to mean that there are many people out there who see all the wonders of this world, and the universe, and cannot imagine it all coming into existence without a God. I totally get that. I often get a sense that there must be some intelligence behind it all- a vast intelligence beyond our comprehension. But that doesn't mean I can't imagine it all happening by chance. There is NO being whose nonexistence is inconceivable. Especially when it's invisible, and inaudible, and likewise undetectable by any other senses or instruments. If God wanted to prove His case, all He'd have to do is show up somewhere. Times Square would work. CNN and all the networks would be all over it. Why all the mystery?