Ontological Argument Is Anselm Is False

Prior to reconstructing the argument, I will inspect the 'a priori' ontological argument, an argument that is solely justified through reasoning alone and based upon concepts and logical relations. To begin with, Anselm introduces "the fool", one that denies the existence of a greater conceivable being. He argues that this "fool" understands what is conceived but does not believe it to actually exist. The fool merely conceives of such a being to exist in his mind, because he has been told of its existence. Anselm adopts "the fool's" understanding of God's existence to prove his a priori argument, as if God exists in the understanding alone, but can be conceived to exist in reality, then God must exist in reality.

Anselm believes that existence is broken into two categories, existence in reality and existence in the understanding. Now the only thing that does not exist, is something that you cannot conceive to exist, or understand.

This leads to the conclusion, if you accept the premises then you accept the existence of the greatest being possible, God.

Anselm begins by defining God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived';. He continues by stating that “even a fool'; has the capacity to understand this definition of God and that whatever is understood exists in the understanding. Anselm now draws his first intermediate inference based on these initial premises; God must exist in the understanding, and is therefore a possible being. Aneselm next draws on the premise that if something exists in reality, it is greater than if it exists in the understanding alone. At this point in his argument

Another part of Anselm's argument is the idea that it is greater to exist in reality as well as mind, rather than simply mind. This speaks specifically to premise 7 of his argument. While in a quantitative sense this is necessarily true (existing in 2 ways rather than only 1, and 2 being greater than 1), it is certainly questionable whether the opponent of this argument would see it as being objectively better. An opponent of premise 7 might say that an idea can remain perfect, like the chocolate cake you dream about eating. Prior to eating it, you perceive it to be perfect, your mouth begins to water, and your conception of that cake you are going to eat exists in your mind in some way. Then, once you eat the cake, it's dry, stale, and the frosting

It seems that Anselm is saying one statement, but that statement contradicts previous statements that he has come up with. Anselm’s ontological argument then becomes weak because he is not consistent with his argument. He argues one point, then in the next argument he contradicts his last point by stating something in the complete opposite direction. This makes it very difficult for a reader to actually understand what Anselm is trying to

Moreover, Anselm reiterates that God is perfect and greater than any other thing in existence. As a result, something that exists in reality (de re) is superior to something that only exists in the mind (de dicto). In retrospect, Anselm claims that ‘existing’ is a defining predicate of the subject ‘God.’ The perfection of God allows him to exist because anything less than perfect means that he does not, therefore by definition he is not God. As a result, ‘God exists’ indicates an analytic statement, making it true by

To begin with, Anselm introduces the Ontological argument as a viral component of the religious aspect of mankind. The presence of a God should not be debated. He portrays this God as an all perfect being that represents the divine concept. He argues that no being is greater than God whether imagined or perceived by the human mind. From the human perspective of divinity, God’s existence is merely an idea of the mind. Even though man’s imagination can present an even higher being than God, it fails to make sense in philosophical principles since it is contradictory. Also, the existence of God can be conceptualized. This means that the senses of man are enough to act as proof of the presence of a being higher and more powerful than him. Philosophy allows for proof to be logical and factual as well as imaginative. From this point, the objection to an idea or imagination such as the existence of God makes his

Now, based off of these proofs made by Anselm, he believes that since God is that which nothing

In the "Proslogion," Anselm states that God is "something greater that which we can conceive of nothing." This very confusing statement, which is likely

The ontological argument argues that if you understand what it means to talk about God, you will see His existence is necessarily true. Anselm defined God as 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', hence God must exist. Anselm also believed that even

Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God, (5) follows simply from (3) and (4).

St. Anselm begins his argument by saying that God is the one that grant the ability of understanding to faith, in which an understanding insofar that has been very beneficial to him. He added that an understanding which he believes God is in fact what he believes to be. Thus, with that understanding leads to the rationale of the notion of something greater to be thought exist is an unconscionable. Anselm’s argument stresses the perspectives which to purport by presenting to those who deny the existence of God as the greatest being is self-contradictory. Therefore, the point of his argument, it is essentially crucial to realized that such a being exist. The “ontological argument by St. Anselm “is the most compelling and fascinating argument

Anselm goes on to justify his assumption by using the analogy of a painter. In short, when a painter first conceives of what it is he wants to accomplish, he has it in his understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. He doesn’t understand it to exist because he has yet to construct his painting. His point in general is that there is a difference between saying that something exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something exists. Anselm goes on to introduce another assumption that could be considered a new version of the argument. He tries to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone by contrasting existing in the understand with existing in reality.

Anselm in this case defines God as “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselm 30). Ontological arguments tend to be a priori, which is an argument that utilizes thoughts as opposed to empirical evidence to prove validity. Anselm addresses the Atheist fool in an attempt to disprove him “since the fool has said in his heart, There is no God?”(Anselm, 30). Anselm stressed that it is obligatory to recognize God as a perfect being that cannot be improved upon, and if someone understands the concept of God, then God exists in that person’s understanding. It is greater to exist in reality than just simply the understanding. The fool understands the concept of God. Therefore the fool has God in his understanding. Suppose God exists only in the understanding of the fool and not in reality. We could then think of something exactly as it existed in the fools understanding but it can also exist in reality, and the being we conceived of would be greater than the being that exists in the fools understanding. Therefore God exists not only in the understanding of the fool but also in reality. By showing that God exists in reality as well as in the understanding, we see that it is imperative that we should believe in God and that it is indeed reasonable.