Rather Interesting
While studying St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument, I came across this from Benedict de Spinoza,
Of everything whatsoever a cause or reason must be assigned, either for its existence, or for its non-existence – e.g., if a triangle exist, a reason or cause must be granted for its existence; if, on the contrary, it does not exist, a cause must also be granted, which prevents it from existing, or annuls its existence. This reason or cause must either be contained in the nature of the thing in question, or be external to it.
He goes on to explain that something may not exist because of some contradiction in its nature (he uses the example of a square-circle) or because of some outside force. For example, I could think of my chair as not existing because there are reasons for it to not exist. Perhaps it was destroyed in a fire.
He then explains,
It follows therefrom that a thing necessarily exists, if no cause or reason be granted which prevents its existence.
So, if there is no reason for something to not exist, then it must exist. Spinoza continues,
As, then, a reason or cause which would annul the divine existence cannot be drawn from anything external to the divine nature, such cause must perforce, if God does not exist, be drawn from God's own nature, which would involve a contradiction. To make such an affirmation about a being absolutely infinite and supremely perfect, is absurd; therefore, neither in the nature of God, nor externally to his nature, can a cause or reason be assigned which would annul his existence. Therefore, God necessarily exists.
So, it is impossible for God to not exist because there is no reason for Him to not exist. There is no contradiction in His nature, and there is no outside force strong enough to prevent His existence. To deny that God necessarily exists would require one to give a cause that might prevent God from existing.
Though I am admittedly not very familiar with Spinoza’s work, I found this bit rather interesting, mainly because it shifts the burden of proof onto the atheist, and that is something they hate.
Another defense of St. Anselm’s proof, found on the same website, is from Robert Flint. He says, in part, that Anselm has proven that perfection, in the sense that God is perfect, requires existence. Therefore, any adequate counter to his argument must resolve the paradox that the perfect being does not exist. It must explain how existence does not add to, and non-existence does not subtract from, this being’s perfection.
© Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath
All rights reserved