1

Michael Blasser
Dr. Flewelling
PHIL 101-02 Problems in Philosophy
5 May 2014

ANSELM, AQUINAS, and PASCAL on THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
St. Anselm presented the first form of the ontological argument that is, an argument for
the existence of God. Anselm posited that God is a being of which nothing greater can be
thought.
1
Such a being, according to Anselm, could not only exist in understanding. If God only
existed in our understanding, then He would be less great than any being that exists both in
understanding and in reality. This does not follow Anselms original definition of God as a being
than which nothing greater can be thought. Anselm therefore concluded that God has to exist in
both our understanding and in reality. He also concluded that God has to exist because, if we
cannot think of anything greater than Him, He cannot be thought to not exist.
2

Anselms argument is at its most sound when he is working with his fixed definition of
God. By adhering to his vision of what God is, Anselm built his argument from a solid
foundation of his own. But, if Anselms argument is sound, then so are other arguments that take
the same form. Anselms argument is only meaningful if someone believes that they understand
God completely, as Anselm virtually did how else could he have come up with a definition for
God? At the least, a person would need to accept Anselms definition of God to begin to find
meaning in his argument. (This could be said about any argument for the existence of something
if the definition of that thing is not universal.) The weakest part of Anselms argument is that he
determined the existence of God via the conception of God, which is inherently flawed. One
cannot establish the existence of anything through its understanding only, no matter how one

1. St. Anselm, The Ontological Argument from Proslogion, found in Philosophical
Problems, ed. Laurence Bonjour and Ann Baker (Pearson Education Inc., 2008), 554.
2. ibid., 555.

may attempt to define that particular thing or being in this case, God. Though Anselm
constructed a reasonable definition for God, he was still basically saying that God has to exist
because we think he exists, which is an impossible statement to prove correct.
St. Thomas Aquinas offered a different argument for the existence of God one that does
not require a concrete definition of God. Aquinas looked to observable phenomena in the
universe and finds five proofs of Gods existence. In summary, there are natural things that are in
motion, that are caused and that cause other things to happen, that exist because something else
also exists, that have varying degrees of perfection, and that work towards ends. Aquinas
realized that none of these properties have an infinite regress and postulated that God must be the
origin for all of these phenomena that God is the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, the
being upon which all other beings are contingent, the pinnacle of perfection, and the being that
guides all natural things toward their ends.
3

Aquinass argument finds its strength in its inductive reasoning. Each proof begins with
something that we could readily observe or accept as true. Aquinas worked backward until each
proof could be reduced no further, and then determined God to be the seed of each proof. While
this structure of arguing does seem sound, there are flaws in Aquinass logic. With the exception
of the argument for God as the pinnacle of perfection, each argument regress back to God, but
never attempts to go further than that. (For example: If God caused everything else, then what
caused God?) In Aquinass argument, Gods existence is actually immune from question entirely
rather, Aquinas was already certain that God does exist, unknowable as He may be, and these
proofs were his attempt to prove so. The argument of God as the pinnacle of perfection is
particularly egregious because of two things. First, perfection is something unquantifiable and

3. St. Thomas Aquinas, The Existence of God from The Summa Theologica, found in
Introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. Anton C. Pegis (Modern Library, 1965), 25-27.

something subjective. There is no standard of perfection because we interpret things to be perfect
in different way. Second, if we cannot fully comprehend God, though we believe him to exist,
then to claim that he is perfection is unfounded. We cannot assume that God is perfect because
we cannot assume anything about God without laying claim to knowing God. Aquinass
argument, like Anselms, is structurally sound, but logically flawed.
Blaise Pascal, unlike Anselm and Aquinas, did not try to argue that God exists. Pascal
believed that we could not possibly know whether God exists or does not exist because He is
infinitely beyond our comprehension.
4
What Pascal argued was for the belief in God, and did
so with what is now commonly called Pascals Wager. In short, Pascal said that either God
exists or he does not, and that we are playing a game in which we must wager that one of these
statements is true, and in which we cannot defend either proposition. Pascal believed that one
would be foolish not to wager that God exists because one would stand to gain infinite happiness
if God existed and would lose nothing if God did not exist.
5

The strength of Pascals argument comes from the fact that Pascal is not trying to argue
for or against this existence of God, but only for the belief in God. In this way, his argument is
strong because he does not need to attempt to define what God is and what it is that He can do.
Pascal only needs to present reasons to believe in God. That said, the reasons themselves cannot
hold up to much scrutiny. First, consider that Pascal was only considering Catholicism when he
wrote this. When Pascal references God, it is not in the grand religious sense, but in a
specifically Christian sense. Therefore, his wager can really only be considered if one is thinking
of the Christian God. Second, if we cannot know whether or not God does or does not exist, then

4. Blaise Pascal, Penses, found in Fifty Readings in Philosophy, ed. Donald C. Abel
(McGraw-Hill, 2011), 125.
5. ibid., 125-126.

we also cannot assume that there are only two possibilities for the afterlife heaven and hell.
Again, because Pascal was writing about Catholicism, he does not begin to factor in the afterlife
beliefs of any other religions. Third, the wager suggests that one who does not believe in God
can change his or her actions to be as someone who does believe in God, and that in doing this
one can learn to believe. To this, there is no proof. For example: a homosexual person changing
their actions to act as though they were heterosexual would they eventually learn to be
heterosexual in earnest, or would they always know that their behavior change was a product of
their own desire to change their biology? If one knows that they are trying to change, then can
they actually change, or just be more aware of distancing themselves from their initial state of
being? Pascals argument is logical on the surface, but the means by which he suggests a person
changes, and the rewards and punishments of those changes, are easily contested.
Though Anselm, Aquinas, and Pascal all have arguments with notable strengths and
weaknesses, it is my opinion that Pascals makes the most sense. Anselm and Aquinas both
argued for the existence of God. But, they both started from a place that already presupposed the
existence of God. They were not so much proving the existence of God as much as they were
trying to validate their own beliefs. Each of their reasons for the existence of God can be
contested, and then the entire argument falls apart. Pascal, yes, can also be contested in many
ways. But, his core idea is still somewhat logical. Presumably, Pascal is implying that belief in
God makes you a better person. If we remove any religious connotations from Pascals Wager,
we are left with a reasonably good argument for simply behaving as a good person. If youre
good to others and yourself, then you stand to get all of that goodness back in turn. I am not a
religious person, but I couldnt see myself disagreeing with that sentiment.