Anselm's Ontological Argument | AQA A-Level Philosophy
For Specification 7172
AQA A-Level Philosophy | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 35 minutes
Anselm's Ontological Argument A-Level Philosophy revision introduces a distinctive attempt to establish God's existence through reason alone. Unlike arguments beginning with observations about the universe, Anselm starts with the concept of God and argues deductively that God must necessarily exist. AQA requires students to understand the argument's logical form, the strength of its conclusion and the conception of God it assumes. This makes careful work on deductive reasoning [Forms of Philosophical Argument] particularly important before moving to objections to Anselm [Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define an ontological argument and explain why Anselm's argument is a priori.
Explain why Anselm's argument is intended to be deductive.
Reconstruct Anselm's reasoning from his conception of God to God's necessary existence.
Explain the conception of God as a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
Distinguish existence in the mind from existence in reality within the argument.
Evaluate whether Anselm's conclusion follows from his premises.
Revision Notes 📚
What is an ontological argument?
An ontological argument is an argument for God's existence that begins with the idea or conception of God.
AQA describes ontological arguments as a family of a priori and deductive arguments that reason from a conception of God to the conclusion that God must or necessarily exists.
This distinguishes them from arguments that begin with observations of the world.
Anselm does not begin by pointing to:
order in nature
causes in the universe
the existence of contingent things
empirical evidence.
Instead, he begins with what is meant by God.
That is why understanding the distinction between different forms of reasoning from Forms of Philosophical Argument [Forms of Philosophical Argument] is so important here.
Why is Anselm's argument a priori?
An a priori argument does not depend upon experience for the justification of its premises.
Anselm's reasoning begins with a concept:
God=a being greater than which nothing can be conceived\text{God} = \text{a being greater than which nothing can be conceived}
It then attempts to reason from that concept to the conclusion that God exists.
AQA therefore classifies Anselm's argument as a priori.
This is unusual for an argument about existence.
Normally, if we want to know whether something exists, we might expect to investigate reality.
Anselm instead attempts to show that once the relevant concept of God is properly understood, God's existence follows through reason.
A priori does not mean "just an opinion"
Be careful here.
Calling an argument a priori does not mean that it is:
unsupported
subjective
based merely on belief.
It means that its reasoning does not depend upon empirical observation.
Whether the reasoning succeeds is a separate question.
Why is the argument deductive?
A deductive argument aims for a conclusion that must follow from its premises.
In a successful deductive argument:
P1+P2+…⇒CP_1 + P_2 + \ldots \Rightarrow C
If the premises are true and the reasoning is valid, the conclusion cannot be false.
Anselm is not merely claiming that God's existence is probable.
His conclusion is much stronger:
God necessarily exists\text{God necessarily exists}
AQA specifically requires students studying arguments for God's existence to pay attention to both their logical form and the strength of their conclusions.
Anselm's argument is therefore fundamentally different from an inductive argument that might conclude only that God's existence is likely.
The conception of God
Anselm's starting point is his conception of God as:
a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
This conception is central to the whole argument.
It does not merely describe God as:
very powerful
very knowledgeable
morally good.
It describes God in terms of unsurpassable greatness.
There cannot, by definition, be a conceivable being greater than God.
This connects with the earlier study of God's characteristics [Divine Attributes], although Anselm's argument specifically depends upon this conception of unsurpassable greatness.
Understanding "greater"
Anselm's argument depends upon comparing two possible ways in which the being described by the concept could exist:
in the mind as an idea
in reality as well as in the mind.
The crucial reasoning is that a being existing in reality would be greater than an otherwise equivalent being existing only as an idea.
This comparison drives the argument.
Suppose:
Gm=God existing only as an idea in the mindG_m = \text{God existing only as an idea in the mind}
and:
Gr=God existing in realityG_r = \text{God existing in reality}
The argument assumes:
Gr>GmG_r > G_m
in greatness.
But if God is already defined as:
a being greater than which nothing can be conceived\text{a being greater than which nothing can be conceived}
then God cannot exist only in the mind, because we could conceive of something greater, namely the same being also existing in reality.
Existence in the understanding
Anselm begins from the claim that the idea of God exists in the mind.
AQA's vocabulary makes this step explicit: Anselm insists that the idea of the being greater than which nothing can be conceived does exist in the mind.
This does not yet mean that God exists outside the mind.
There is an important distinction between:
conceiving of X\text{conceiving of X}
and:
X actually existing\text{X actually existing}
For example, a person can possess a concept without thereby showing that an object corresponding to that concept exists.
Anselm's argument therefore needs a further step to move from conception to reality.
Anselm's central reasoning
Suppose God existed only in the mind.
We would then have:
G=the greatest conceivable being existing only mentallyG = \text{the greatest conceivable being existing only mentally}
But we could conceive of another being with the same characteristics that also existed in reality.
According to the reasoning of the argument:
existence in reality>existence only in the mind\text{existence in reality} > \text{existence only in the mind}
So this second being would be greater.
But that generates a contradiction.
We began by defining God as:
a being greater than which nothing can be conceived\text{a being greater than which nothing can be conceived}
yet we have now conceived of something greater.
Therefore, Anselm concludes that God cannot exist merely in the mind.
God must exist in reality.
Reconstructing Anselm's argument
A clear reconstruction is:
God is a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
We possess this concept of God in the mind.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that God exists only in the mind and not in reality.
A being existing in reality as well as in the mind would be greater than an otherwise equivalent being existing only in the mind.
Therefore, if God existed only in the mind, we could conceive of something greater than God.
But this contradicts the definition of God as a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
Therefore, God does not exist only in the mind.
God exists in reality.
AQA summarises the reasoning in essentially this form: if God existed only as an idea, a real God would be greater, contradicting the initial conception of God. AQA therefore presents Anselm's conclusion as God's necessary existence.
The contradiction at the centre of the argument
The argument is easier to understand if you identify the contradiction.
Start with:
D=God is the being greater than which nothing can be conceivedD = \text{God is the being greater than which nothing can be conceived}
Then assume:
A=God exists only in the mindA = \text{God exists only in the mind}
If existence in reality makes a being greater, then:
D+AD + A
allows us to conceive of:
G∗=a being greater than GodG^* = \text{a being greater than God}
But:
DD
rules out the possibility of:
G∗G^*
So the assumption that God exists only in the mind leads to a contradiction with the original definition.
The argument therefore rejects that assumption.
This style of reasoning is important when learning how to evaluate philosophical arguments [Evaluating and Constructing Arguments].
Why does Anselm conclude that God must exist?
Anselm's conclusion is not merely:
God happens to exist.
AQA describes the conclusion as:
God must (necessarily) exist.
This fits the nature of an ontological argument.
The attempt is to show that God's existence follows from the conception of God itself.
If the argument works, God's existence is therefore not established as an accidental fact discovered through experience.
Instead, the conclusion follows deductively from the concept.
This is why AQA emphasises the strength of the conclusion when students study arguments for God's existence.
The logical structure of the argument
Because Anselm's reasoning is deductive, two separate questions matter:
Is the argument valid?
Are its premises acceptable?
These should not be confused.
Validity
A deductive argument is valid if:
if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true\text{if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true}
The issue is whether Anselm's conclusion genuinely follows from the assumptions he has made.
Soundness
For a deductive argument to establish its conclusion successfully, its premises must also be true.
So even if the reasoning from premises to conclusion works, a critic may challenge one of the premises.
This gives a useful evaluation structure:
valid reasoning+true premises=sound argument\text{valid reasoning} + \text{true premises} = \text{sound argument}
These concepts belong to the wider AQA requirements for philosophical argumentation.
A crucial premise: existence and greatness
The reasoning depends upon the claim that a being existing in reality would be greater than the corresponding being existing only in the mind.
Without that step, the argument cannot move from:
God exists as an idea\text{God exists as an idea}
to:
God exists in reality\text{God exists in reality}
So one useful question when evaluating the argument is:
Has Anselm established the relationship between real existence and greatness that his argument requires?
If the premise is accepted, the contradiction follows more readily.
If it is rejected, the move from conceptual existence to actual existence is threatened.
The detailed AQA objections to ontological arguments are developed in Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections [Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections] and Descartes' Ontological Argument and Kant's Objection [Descartes' Ontological Argument and Kant's Objection].
A crucial premise: the concept of God
The argument also depends upon its starting conception:
God=a being greater than which nothing can be conceived\text{God} = \text{a being greater than which nothing can be conceived}
If this concept is accepted, then conceiving of something greater than God produces a contradiction.
But the argument cannot simply begin with one conception and silently switch to another.
A strong examination answer should therefore state Anselm's definition accurately and show how every later step depends upon it.
Do not replace it with a vaguer statement such as:
"God is the best being."
That loses the logical role played by the impossibility of conceiving something greater.
Does imagining God prove that God exists?
Not by itself.
Anselm's argument is more sophisticated than:
I can imagine God.
Therefore, God exists.
The actual reasoning adds the claim that the specific concept of God is the concept of a being greater than which nothing can be conceived, together with the comparison between existing only mentally and existing in reality.
Therefore, the argument is:
conception of God\text{conception of God}
plus
claim about greater existence\text{claim about greater existence}
leading to
contradiction if God exists only mentally\text{contradiction if God exists only mentally}
and finally:
God exists\text{God exists}
Reducing the argument to "I can think of God, therefore God exists" misses its deductive structure.
Does the conclusion follow?
There are two levels at which this should be evaluated.
If the premises are accepted
Suppose we accept that:
God means a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
this concept exists in the mind.
existing in reality makes a being greater than existing only in the mind.
Then assuming that God exists only mentally seems to generate the contradiction Anselm identifies.
On this interpretation, the conclusion is intended to follow deductively.
But are the premises secure?
The strength of a deductive argument depends not only on logical form but also on whether the premises can be defended.
Questions include:
Is Anselm's conception of God acceptable?
Is existing in reality really a respect in which something is greater?
Can the existence of something outside the mind be established from a concept held within the mind?
Does the contradiction arise because God actually exists, or because of how the concept has been defined?
These questions lead directly into the specified challenges covered in Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections [Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections].
The importance of necessary existence
The conclusion of an ontological argument is stronger than:
God exists\text{God exists}
It aims at:
God necessarily exists\text{God necessarily exists}
A necessary existence is one that could not fail to obtain, rather than an existence that merely happens to obtain contingently.
AQA requires students to pay particular attention to differences such as whether an argument concludes:
God does exist
God must exist.
This will become especially important when comparing Anselm with Descartes' Ontological Argument and Kant's Objection [Descartes' Ontological Argument and Kant's Objection] and Malcolm's Ontological Argument [Malcolm's Ontological Argument].
Anselm compared with later ontological arguments
AQA specifies three ontological arguments:
Anselm
Descartes
Norman Malcolm.
All three are classified as a priori and deductive, but they do not begin with exactly the same conception of God.
Argument | Starting conception of God |
Anselm | A being greater than which nothing can be conceived |
Descartes | A supremely perfect being |
Malcolm | An unlimited being |
AQA's vocabulary distinguishes these starting points explicitly.
For this lesson, the key point is that Anselm's version must be understood on its own terms. Do not accidentally insert Descartes' language of a "supremely perfect being" into Anselm's argument.
Overall assessment
Anselm's ontological argument is striking because it attempts to move from:
the concept of God\text{the concept of God}
to:
God necessarily exists\text{God necessarily exists}
without appealing to empirical evidence.
Its strength is its tight deductive ambition. If its conception of God and its crucial comparison between mental and real existence are accepted, the assumption that God exists only in the mind appears to contradict the very definition from which the argument begins.
However, this also reveals where evaluation must focus. The argument succeeds only if its premises genuinely justify the transition from an idea to reality.
That is why the next stage of the course, Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections [Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections], asks whether Anselm's method can really establish existence in this way.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Ontological argument | An a priori, deductive argument that reasons from a conception of God to the conclusion that God necessarily exists. | Use to classify Anselm's argument and distinguish it from arguments beginning with experience. |
A priori | Justified independently of experience. | Explain why Anselm does not rely on observations of the world. |
Deductive | Reasoning in which the conclusion must follow if the premises are true and the argument is valid. | Use when analysing the logical form and strength of Anselm's conclusion. |
Necessary | Something that could not be otherwise or could not fail to obtain. | Use when explaining why Anselm aims to establish that God must exist. |
Being greater than which nothing can be conceived | Anselm's conception of God as a being for which no greater being can be conceived. | State accurately when reconstructing the argument. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
No lesson-specific examiner guidance was identified in the provided reports.
Examiner hint: When reconstructing Anselm's argument, make the inferential steps explicit. Do not jump from "God is the greatest conceivable being" directly to "God exists". Explain the role played by existence in the mind, existence in reality and the contradiction generated by supposing God exists only mentally.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying Anselm uses evidence from the world
Why this is incorrect:AQA classifies Anselm's ontological argument as a priori. It begins with the concept of God rather than empirical observations.
How to improve:Explicitly contrast reasoning from a concept with reasoning from experience.
Mistake: Describing the argument as inductive
Why this is incorrect:Anselm intends the conclusion to follow necessarily rather than merely probably.
How to improve:Identify the argument as deductive and explain what that means for the relationship between premises and conclusion.
Mistake: Defining Anselm's God as simply "a perfect being"
Why this is incorrect:That blurs Anselm's argument with Descartes' later conception of God as a supremely perfect being.
How to improve:Use Anselm's specified conception: a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
Mistake: Saying "we can imagine God, so God exists"
Why this is incorrect:This leaves out the central reasoning of the argument.
How to improve:Explain why Anselm thinks a God existing only as an idea would be surpassed by the corresponding being existing in reality.
Mistake: Confusing existence in the mind with existence in reality
Why this is incorrect:The distinction between the two is essential to Anselm's reasoning.
How to improve:Make the stages clear:
idea in the mind≠existence in reality\text{idea in the mind} \neq \text{existence in reality}
and then explain why Anselm tries to move from the former to the latter.
Mistake: Assuming that calling an argument deductive proves it is successful
Why this is incorrect:A deductive argument must still have valid reasoning and acceptable premises.
How to improve:Evaluate both the logical relationship between the premises and conclusion and the assumptions on which that reasoning depends.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
What type of argument is Anselm's ontological argument? (2 marks)
Indicative answer:It is an a priori and deductive argument for God's existence.
Marking guidance:Award credit for identifying both characteristics.
Question 2
State Anselm's conception of God. (3 marks)
Indicative answer:Anselm conceives of God as a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
Marking guidance:The answer should convey the idea that no greater being can be conceived.
Question 3
Explain why Anselm's ontological argument is a priori. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:Anselm begins from the idea or conception of God rather than from observations of the world. He defines God as a being greater than which nothing can be conceived and reasons from this concept towards God's existence. The justification of the argument therefore does not depend upon empirical experience.
Marking guidance:A strong answer should connect the meaning of a priori directly to the structure of Anselm's argument.
Question 4
Explain why Anselm's argument is deductive. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:Anselm intends the conclusion that God necessarily exists to follow from the premises concerning the concept of God and the comparison between existence only in the mind and existence in reality. The argument therefore aims to establish that, if its premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false rather than merely making God's existence probable.
Marking guidance:Credit explanation of both deduction and the strength of Anselm's conclusion.
Question 5
A student says:
"Anselm argues that because people can imagine God, God must exist."
Explain why this is an incomplete account of Anselm's argument. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:Anselm does begin from a concept of God in the mind, but he specifically defines God as a being greater than which nothing can be conceived. He then argues that if this being existed only in the mind, a corresponding being existing in reality could be conceived as greater. This would contradict the original definition. The reasoning therefore involves more than simply claiming that whatever can be imagined must exist.
Marking guidance:A strong answer should identify the missing steps rather than merely say that the student's statement is wrong.
Question 6
Explain Anselm's ontological argument. (12 marks)
Indicative content might include:
Ontological arguments are a priori and deductive.
Anselm begins with God as a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
This conception exists in the mind.
Assume that God exists only as an idea.
A corresponding being existing in reality would be greater than one existing only mentally.
It would therefore be possible to conceive of something greater than the being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
This is contradictory.
Therefore, God cannot exist merely in the mind.
God exists in reality.
Anselm's conclusion is intended to establish necessary existence.
Marking guidance:A developed answer should reconstruct the argument in a clear logical sequence, using the concepts of a priori reasoning, deduction and necessary existence accurately.
Question 7
Explain why the distinction between existence in the mind and existence in reality is important to Anselm's argument. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:Anselm accepts that the concept of God exists in the mind, but his argument needs to establish God's real existence. He claims that a being existing in reality is greater than an otherwise equivalent being existing only mentally. If God existed only in the mind, something greater could therefore be conceived, contradicting the definition of God. The distinction supplies the crucial step from the concept to the conclusion.
Marking guidance:The response should explain the logical role of the distinction, not simply define the two forms of existence.
Question 8
Evaluate whether Anselm's ontological argument successfully establishes that God exists. (25 marks)
Indicative content:
A developed answer could consider:
The a priori and deductive form of the argument.
Anselm's conception of God as a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
The presence of this concept in the mind.
The assumption that existence in reality makes a being greater than existence only in the mind.
The contradiction generated if God is assumed to exist only mentally.
Whether the conclusion follows if all these premises are accepted.
The distinction between the validity of the reasoning and the acceptability of its premises.
Whether a concept alone can support a conclusion concerning real existence.
Whether the crucial claim concerning existence and greatness has been adequately established.
The difference between showing that a concept has certain implications and showing that something corresponding to that concept exists.
The fact that the detailed specified objections are developed in Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections [Gaunilo and Empiricist Objections].
A reasoned judgement on whether Anselm has successfully moved from conception to necessary existence.
Marking guidance:The strongest answers will reconstruct Anselm accurately before evaluating the precise points on which the deduction depends. They should distinguish whether the conclusion follows from the premises from the separate question of whether those premises should be accepted.
Comments