Ontological proof of God’s existence

Elizabeth Anscombe 

In 1078, Saint Anselm of Canterbury proposed a proof of God’s existence in his work Proslogion, which has given rise to various versions that attempted to improve it (usually without success) and to attempts to demolish it. Even today, it continues to provoke the attention of philosophers and corrections to its translation. This is Saint Anselm's argument, originally written in Latin, as it is usually translated:

i.      That than which nothing greater can be conceived at any rate exists in the mind of the fool who says there is no such thing.

ii.   If that than which nothing greater can be conceived is only in a mind, it can be thought to exist in reality too, which is greater.

iii. Therefore if that than which nothing greater can be conceived is only in a mind, it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

iv.  But it is a contradiction to say that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is something than which a greater can be conceived.

v.    Therefore that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in reality as well as in the mind.

One of the versions by Descartes is simpler, but also debatable:

i.      A fully perfect can be imagined.

ii.   An existent being is more perfect than one that does not exist.

iii. Ergo that fully perfect being must exist, for otherwise it wouldn’t be fully perfect.

This syllogism is valid, because its conclusion is a consequence of the premises. The problem lies in the premises, especially the second. Frege, for instance, argued that existence is a second-order property, related to the natural numbers, since denying the existence of something (let's call it G) is to assert that |{x|ƎGx}|=0, i.e. the set G(x) is empty, and no number (including zero) is more perfect than another. This criticism would also apply to Anselm's ontological argument.

Kurt Gödel

Based on Leibniz's version, Kurt Gödel formulated his famous mathematical ontological argument that can be found in Wikipedia. The proof is flawless, but it relies on five axioms that Gödel considers self-evident, while atheists need to deny just one of them to reject Gödel’s proof. And even if they fail to disprove them, they can always claim that this doesn't prove that they are true.

Elizabeth Anscombe approached Anselm's proof from another perspective. This is the original Latin text of Anselm’s proof, as it is usually transcribed:

ii.   Si enim id quo maius cogitari non potest est in solo intellectu, cogitari potest esse et in re, quod maius est.

San Anselmo de Canterbury

According to Anscombe, the second comma should not be there, since commas were not used in Anselm's time, and this comma is absent from almost all ancient copies of the Proslogion. Translators, however, often insert it, but in doing so they alter the meaning of the premise. According to Anscombe modification (eliding the comma), this Latin text should be translated as follows:

ii. If this does exist only in an intellect, what is greater than it can be thought to exist in reality as well.

The conclusion Anscombe draws from this is that Anselm's argument, as he originally formulated it, was not ontological, since it does not start from the premise that existence is a perfection; it simply states that existing in two ways is more than existing in just one, and therefore some of the criticisms it has suffered as a result of a bad translation should not be applied to it.

The same post in Spanish

Thematic Thread on Science, Faith and Atheism: Previous Next

Manuel Alfonseca