Ontological Proof of God
(Descartes and St Anselm)

Descartes' (1596-1650CE) and St Anselm's formations of an Ontological Argument for the Existence of God is a traditional philosophical "proof" that has a number of flaws with it but is well-known and still referred to. It is primarily a "proof" that theists use to defend their own position than it is one that would be used to logically convince someone that a god must exist.

1. Descartes' Ontological Proof of God
2. Problem One: Solipsism
3. Problem Two: Perfection
4. Problem Three: Inherently Satanic
5. Problem Four: Ambiguous
6. Misc.
7. Conclusion

---

Descartes' Ontological Proof of God

Rene Descartes' Ontological "Proof of God." is, roughly:

1. I exist

2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being

3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being

4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself

5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist

6. Therefore a perfect being must exist

The original argument was invented by St. Anselm before it was presented by Descartes.

“St Anselm was [...] an Italian, a monk at Bec, and Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109) [...]. He is chiefly known to fame as the inventor of the 'ontological argument' for the existence of God. As he put it, the argument is as follows: We define 'God' as the greatest possible object of thought. Now if an object of tought does not exist, another, exactly like it, which does exist, is greater. Therefore the greatest of all objects of thought must exist, since, otherwise, another, still greater, would be possible. Therefore God exists. This argument has never been accepted, by theologians. It was adversely critizied at the time; it was forgotten till the latter half of the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas rejected it, and and among theoligians his authority has prevailed ever since. But among philosophers it had had a better fate. Descartes revived it in a somewhat amended form; Leibniz thought that it could be made valid by the addition of a supplement to prove that God is possible. Kant considered that he had demolished it once and for all.”

"History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, p410

Problem One: Solipsism

The first problem with this "proof" is that upon reading it, something "seems wrong". It is not compelling. It feels like that if you were to accept this and therefore believe in God, you'd have been somehow tricked. The reason is God appears as "proven" through the impulse of a person, of many different people, yet how can all these people imagine that same type of perfect God when so many people have different views on what God is or should be? It seems more like an argument for the existence of millions of different "perfect" gods. It does not seem true that because we imagine something to be perfect it follows that it is perfect.

Or, if the gods we imagine up are deemed to be perfect, then it follows that Descartes' proof is sound for polytheism, not monotheism. As different types of god suit different types of people and culture, through time and development, all these "perfect" gods must exist. Either the whole plethora of gods is true or Descartes' argument is false.

Problem Two: Perfection

Descartes' argument is normally given as a proof of an Abrahamic, monotheistic God such as the Christian or Muslim God, but both those religions hold that mankind is inherently imperfect. Our thoughts and personalities are imperfect, and to hold that we can have "perfect" thoughts is generally considered blasphemy, on a kin to claiming to be able to think like God. If we cannot think perfectly, we cannot correctly imagine a perfect God, we can only fully accommodate a limited conjuration of God in our minds. Point 3 confirms this, but point 4 is still problematic. Why does it appear that such a "perfect" being reveals itself to us in many different forms and guises? All the evidence contradicts the idea that an absolute God is revealing itself, it is more like multiple people are seeing different gods in accordance with their own lives. Hence: There is no singular projection of a perfect god; it is subjective, it is a product of imperfect minds and if it exists it is still perceived through imperfect minds.

Secondly, epistemologically, we cannot verify that our conception of "perfect" is indeed "perfect". It can be said that every human knows itself to be imperfect and incapable of thinking up "perfect" states of being. As such, this nagging doubt would prevent any imagined "perfect" God from being really considered perfect. As it is a creation of our mind, we know it is not a god and not perfect. So Descartes' argument falls hollow upon a plain of doubt and deceptive illusions; we can't really conceive of a perfect God. The argument rests on a premise, that we can have perfect thoughts, that most monotheistic religions reject.

Thirdly it may be impossible for something perfect to exist, in which case existence would be contradictory to perfection. Therefore if God is perfect it must exist strictly as a concept only and cannot exist in reality. A slightly different argument for the non-existence of God is explained by Dawkins (2006):

“The most definitive refutations of the ontological argument are Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kent identified the trick card up Anselm's sleave as his slippery assumption that 'existence' is more 'perfect' than non-existence. [...] Another philosopher, the Australian Douglas Gasking, made the point with his ironic 'proof' that God does not exist (Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo had suggested a somewhat similar reductio).

1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.

6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

Ergo:

7. God does not exist.

”

"The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, p83

We can 'imagine' a perfect god, or, a more powerful idea: the creation of the world by a non-existant being. What a feat! Impossible... but no more impossible that God creating the universe from nothing. Dawkins concludes with the following remark: "Gasking didn't really prove that God does not exist. By the same token, Anselm didn't prove that he does. The only difference is, Gasking was being funny on purpose." [Dawkins 2006 p84].

Problem Three: Inherently Satanic

As a Satanist I have a strong counter argument resulting from taking Descartes' argument to the next logical level:

7. As this being exists on account of my rendition of it, then without me this perfect being would not exist. Therefore I am more powerful than the perfect being and I am the true God. If I die, the God created to suit me dies.

Most traditions of Satanic text state that "We are all gods" and that "We make god in our image" and Descartes' argument can be used as proof for more of a Satanic personal, internal Godhood rather than the external God that monotheists wish. Every individual will no doubt be making different assumptions about what a perfect being is and how it would be. Thus; everyone is creating a different perfect being. God is in our image according to our needs and wants and would not exist without the individual who creates it. We all have a god of our own residing in the part of our minds that deals with such abstract concepts.

• Satanism & Self-worship: Gods created in our image according to our needs

Problem Four: Ambiguous

Imagine a perfect island paradise. Perfect in every way, incorruptible by tourism or the natural elements, small and unknown yet safe and accessible. A perfect temperature with an atmosphere that protects against radiation, a limitless supply of nutritious and varied food. Everything you want and need... except there is one problem. It is only really "perfect" if it exists. This highlights a fundamental problem of Descartes' Ontological argument. It can be used to prove anything at all. A perfect island paradise, a perfect relationship or lover or a perfect world. But no matter how much we want these things to exist, we know that they don't! And not only that but so many of these perfect things could be imagined that they would contradict each other. The existence of one perfect things denies the existence of other exclusive things; you can't have a "perfect" island paradise if someone's' conception of a "perfect" world is one with no insects or oceans. One persons' god would contradict another persons' god. The perfectly loving god of the Universalist Christian would contradict the vengeful god of the Old Testament, and both would contradict the biblical God of evangelists yet all consider their own gods to be perfect. The ambiguity of the argument that "it must exist if it is really perfect" shows us that it is fundamentally flawed.

Misc.

"The Phenomenon of Religion" by Moojan Momen

Moojan Momen states that "the ontological argument takes various forms" and mentions the specific occurrences of it advanced by Descartes and St. Anselm. He mentions two historical objections (p191):

• There is a difference between the real world and conceptual worlds meaning that the argument is nonsensical

• Christian Fundamentalists themselves have insisted there can be no Human proofs of God since human beings can only know what God chooses to reveal of itself

Conclusion

Descartes' Ontological proof of god is fundamentally flawed and problematic. As everyone imagines up many different perfect god, the argument must support polytheism or atheism. If we can imagine perfection, due to all our imaginings of millions of people we'd have a multitude of different gods, or if we cannot imagine perfection then Descartes' argument proves only the absence of a perfect god. Also, it sounds more like Satanism when you re-phrase the argument to say that without the power of the individual, the god would not exist. Placing God in the hands of sole magicians & wanderers, as imaginary beings that die when their human creator dies is deeply Satanic. And finally, just because we can imagine perfect island paradises, perfect meals, perfect lovers and the like, does not mean that these things all exist. Descartes' argument fails to assert that we are capable of imagining perfection, that "perfection" can exist, or why there is not a multitude of different existing perfections to suit every individual. The ultimate perfection is that everyone would be in heaven, but as this clearly is not the case Descartes' argument is deeply flawed: There is no perfection, no gods, and we can't coherently imagine either anyway.