The Ontological Argument: Anselm And Descartes

Intro Throughout this essay, a question will present itself as to if the ontological argument can be accepted. To accomplish the task at hand, we shall analyze; firstly, the ontological argument from both Anselm and Descartes. Secondly, we shall discuss the argument for the existence of Fido, and why it does and does not look reasonable (which will answer (i)). Afterwards, questions (ii) and (iii) will be answered, followed by a rejection of the ontological argument from Gaunilo, and then an argument in the defence of the ontological argument from the Internet. However, due to the time constraint I will not discuss in depth if the ontological argument can be modified, but rather I will state that any modification made would contradict and prove itself false. In the end, I will conclude by demonstrating as to why the ontological argument cannot be accepted.

The Ontological Argument from Anselm The first Ontological Argument for God’s existence, was first proposed by Anselm, the first premise of the argument is that there cannot be something greater than God which can be conceived. The second premise is that beings can exist in the mind or in reality or in both, in addition, beings that exist in the mind and reality are greater than beings that only exist in the mind, which also happens to be the third premise of the argument. In the fourth

The first of which came against Anselm by a monk named Gaunilo. Gaunilo argued that it was possible to construct an argument with the same concepts of the ontological argument. To prove this he used the existence of the perfect island, for there could not be a greater island since this was perfect, therefore, existence had to be of these perfections due to existing being greater than not existing. According to Gaunilo, the argument must work if the ontological argument works, but is clear that Gaunilo’s argument was just a mockery of Anselm’s