Anselm of Canterbury famously wrote that he did not seek to understand God in order to believe, but believed in order to understand. He argued that God’s non-existence is unimaginable because God’s greatness is beyond conception. This is often interpreted not as a strict logical argument but as a statement of faith: understanding God grows out of belief, rather than belief arising from logical proof. Anselm’s focus was on how faith deepens understanding rather than proving God’s existence.
Immanuel Kant criticized ontological arguments by noting that defining God as existing essentially makes existence part of God’s definition, which is circular reasoning: “God means existence, so God must exist.” While technically an ontological argument, it may reflect a subconscious assumption held by believers, even if they recognize it as logically flawed.
Douglas Gasking (d. 1994) offered a logical argument aimed at disproving God’s existence:
The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
The merit of an achievement depends on (a) its intrinsic quality and (b) the ability of its creator.
The greater the creator’s handicap, the more impressive the achievement.
The greatest possible handicap for a creator is non-existence.
Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, one could conceive of a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Premise 1 assumes the universe is a supremely marvelous achievement. While this is debatable, the logical form of the argument can still be evaluated independently of its truth. Gasking’s point is that whether the universe was created or merely made, the notion of a maker is more important than the act of creation itself. Believers typically claim God exists outside the universe, but if God is assumed to be part of it, Premise 1 could be accepted without implying God’s existence.
Premise 3 suggests that an achievement is more impressive if its creator is limited, which is logically consistent. However, Premise 4 treats non-existence as a “perfection,” a problematic notion: something that does not exist cannot possess qualities, perfect or otherwise. Some might argue non-existence avoids suffering, but this is an abstract idea, not a real property.
Premise 5 points to a contradiction inherent in the concept of God as a maximal being. Premise 6 concludes that God does not exist because the concept is incoherent.
In sum, Gasking’s argument is logically valid as a form of atheism, but it does not prove God’s non-existence in the definitive way he might have intended. Rather, it highlights conceptual problems in defining God as a being whose attributes include existence.