Like Bertrand Russell, I have always kind of felt that, while I can’t directly refute Anselm’s famous ontological argument for the existence of God, I am also not convinced by it. It feels to me like I am being subtly manipulated with words.
Nevertheless, I find the God that the ontological argument leads to, i.e., one who is not any greater even with all of creation added to it, very appealing for much work in theology because it keeps God out of the system of “things.”
I would like to state this as a resolution to be discussed, because I’d like to know how others think and feel about this:
Resolved: Anselm’s ontological argument is inadequate as proof of God’s existence, but helpful in understanding just what we mean by the word “God.”
Discuss.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In