Anselm’s Ontological Argument (a modification of Kalam Argument)

1. Definition of God: God is defined as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.”

2. Existence in the Understanding (Mind): Even if someone denies God’s existence, they still understand what the term “God” means. So, the idea of God is present in their intellect.

3. Reality vs Idea alone. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality, is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. (Idea of a Portrait vs A painter who have Translated the Idea into a Real Portrait. An Actual Portraits is Greater.)

4. Contradiction: If God (the greatest conceivable being) exists only in the mind and not in reality, then that god is NOT the God as per definition in premise 1.

5. God Must Exist in Reality and REAL.

Criticisms:

Gaunilo’s “Perfect Island” Parody:

Gaunilo, a monk and contemporary of Anselm, offered one of the earliest critiques by applying the same logic to a “perfect island”—the greatest conceivable island, with endless resources, beauty, and no flaws. According to Anselm’s reasoning, if this island exists only in the mind, a greater one could be imagined that exists in reality, leading to a contradiction. Thus, the perfect island must exist. But this is absurd, as no such island necessarily exists just because we can conceive it. Imagine defining the “greatest possible pizza” with infinite toppings, perfect crust, and eternal freshness. By Anselm’s logic, it must exist in reality to be truly the greatest, but we know that’s nonsense—pizzas don’t pop into existence via definition alone.

Comment: Criticism is still not valid. Because if such perfect island or pizza does NOT exist in reality, it is not the Largest, because it only exits in Idea [premise 1].

Kant:

You can fully describe a concept (e.g., a hundred dollars) without it existing, and adding “exists” doesn’t make the concept greater—it just makes it real. Think of a “perfect unicorn” with a shimmering horn, magical powers, and immortality. Listing its perfections doesn’t make it exist; existence is a separate fact, not an enhancement.

Comment: Again, these hypothetical Ideas are without any Reality, then those hypotheticals are just a mental monstrosity without actual Reality.

Aquinas’ Objection: Inability to Fully Conceive God.

Aquinas declares, humans cannot fully comprehend God’s nature. However, Anselm assumes that we can conceive of the “greatest conceivable being” in our finite minds, but Aquinas argued that God’s essence is beyond human understanding.

Comment: Who told Aquinas that Human cannot fully grasp. Some do, as validated in Scriptures.

“And they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills” (Quran 2:255).

“...Only those truly fear Allah (yakhsha Allaha) among His servants who have knowledge (al-’ulama’). Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Forgiving.” Quran 35:28

“...And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firmly grounded in knowledge (wa ar-rasikhuna fi al-’ilm) say, ‘We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord.’ And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” Quran 3:7

Conclusion:

Anselm’s Ontological Argument remains valid, as long as you can Identify Who Is this God is in Reality or in Real World. It indirectly suggests, Greatest God is a Physical Being that we can Perceive. The Hidden assumption in whole Anselm’s argument is that Some CAN Know who is this GOD in REALITY.

GOD in REALITY:

"So wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah" ... Quran 2:115

“We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth...” Quran 41:53

“Indeed, those who pledge allegiance to you... are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. The Hand of Allah is over their hands.” Quran 48:10