Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

986 Words4 Pages
Anselm’s ontological argument was presented in chapter two of Anselm’s Proslogion. The actual argument is as follow: (1) If God exists only in understanding, then we can think of a being greater than God. (2) We can’t think of a being greater than God. (3) Therefore not the case that God only exists in the understanding. (4) Either God exists in reality or God exists in the understanding. (5) Therefore God exist in reality (conclusion). To put this argument in conclusion argument form it would look like this: 1. If P then Q 2. Not Q 3. Not P 4. R or P 5. Therefore R This argument is in modus tollen form, so since it is modus tollen it is valid. To understand this argument, you must understand some of the main terms and axioms related to this argument. The first terms I feel that must be defined to understand this argument is God. God by definition means the being that which nothing is greater can be thought of. God is the omnipotent, omniscient and omni benevolent. By definition, nothing can be imagined as being greater than God. The next important phrase need to be understood is what it means to exist in the understanding. What this mean is that if someone understands a concept then that person has an understanding for that idea. This can be seen as if someone understands the concept of God, which is that nothing greater than God can be conceived, than that concept exits in that persons understanding. Another important thing to know is that existing in reality is greater then existing in only the understanding. This comes from Anselm’s ontological principle. In this principle it states if X and Y are alike in all respects except that X exists in reality and Y only exists in the understanding, then X is greater than Y. ... ... middle of paper ... ...sented my Anslem. I believe it because o my personal beliefs and what I was taught as a child. So I do feel God exits in reality and that is one thing that makes him perfect. This is an issue that anyone can favor or against because it does deal with religion and god, and there is no way to really prove this. IT all depends on one person’s views and what they feel God is. Is he the best, that nothing can be better then him etc.? I don’t agree with the objection. I do feel that if something exist it is better then only an understating, like a painting. Before an artist draws a picture he or she has an imagine of it in his or her mind. Then he or she actually draws it so it now exists. I think that people would feel that the actually painting is better than just having the understanding of the concept of that image. So I think that existence is a perfection.
Open Document