The Ontological Argument Analysis

In the bible, it says that “Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God” (Psalms 14:1). Anselm's reflection to this has become known as the Ontological Argument. Anselm defines God by saying God is that “which nothing greater can be conceived.” One way to interpret this phrase is to define “God” as maximal perfection, i.e. the greatest possible being. Anselm justifies his argument by using the idea of a painter. When a painter first knows of what it is he or she wants to accomplish, they have it in their understanding but does not yet understand it to exist. They don’t understand it to exist because they have yet to construct their painting. He is trying to say that there is a difference between saying that something actually exists in my mind and saying that I believe that something actually exists. when you hear the word square, you picture a square, or when you hear the word circle, you picture a circle. Anselm argued when humans hear the word God, they think Supreme Being. When I hear the word “God,” I recognize a God that I know from my personal experiences, but I also know that this God of mine is also working through the lives of everyone, not just mine. He has an intimate oneness with all of us, even if we don’t recognize or know it. I don’t think the God I know of is worried about whether people are religious or not. I think this God is interested in exploring experience, through us.

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

The Ontological Argument In Anselm's ontological argument he is trying to prove the existence of God, his argument is an argument purely based on the mind and does not require the moral agent to venture into the real of the senses. Ontology is to do with being, or what something is. Anselm's ontological argument concerns existence and whether it is an attribute of God in the same way omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence are believed to be. The argument is an a priori argument. It does not rest on proving God's existence by relying on experimental knowledge but on showing that God must exist logically, or that God's non-existence is illogical.

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 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.

This argument for God’s existence was developed by the twelfth century theologian and philosopher, Anselm. It is based on Anselm’s declaration that God is “that which nothing greater can be conceived.”

In Proslogion, Anselm argues God’s existence using what has come to be known as the ontological argument. Using the ontological argument, Anselm disproves “the fools” belief that there is no God. However, Anselm does not give enough backing to his arguments. This is particularly true in the fourth point, that it is conceivable that God exists in reality. Although I agree with Anselm, he gives no evidence to support why it is conceivable that God truly exists in reality. Anselm immediately goes from saying how it means more if something exists in reality and understanding than just in the understanding to immediately saying that the fool can conceive that God exists in reality. The

With natural limits in mind, it is possible to determine existence in reality as long as the great making properties attained by a thought have a maximum limit. For example, Anselm’s God is given great making properties such as omnipotence, moral perfection, and omniscience. It is impossible to have more power than the maximum power, as well as it is impossible to know more when you already know everything. Anselm’s God has great making properties with natural limits, therefore its logical that his God exists in reality.

In Chapter 2 of Anselm's Proslogian, Anselm offers what was later to be characterized as his Ontological Argument, which is an argument for God's existence he felt was so strong that even a fool as is said in Psalms 14:1- "who has said in his heart, 'There is no God'". Anselm's argument is as follows :

Anselm now notices that there is a contradiction between his definition of God, and the assumption that God does not exist. If his definition of God demands absolute, unlimited greatness, then a God who does not exist in realty could be said to be inferior to a God that does indeed exist in reality. In our imagining of a God that exists both in our understanding and in reality, we are imagining a being of which its greatness supersedes our first conception of a non-existing God. Thus, according to Anselm’s argument, our previous assumption that God does not exist in reality must in fact be false. Therefore Anselm concludes that God must exist in reality, because if this was not the case, we would be imagining a being greater than the greatest possible being we could imagine – a contradiction no less. So where do the weaknesses in the Ontological argument lie?

The debate of the existence of God had been active since before the first philosopher has pondered the question. Anselm’s Ontological Argument was introduced during the 11th century and had stood deductively valid until the 18th century. Then there are the arguments to aim disprove God, such as the Argument from Evil.

In the book, The Proslogion, written by Saint Anselm, we find the Ontological Argument. This argument made by Saint Anselm gives us proofs that he believes helps prove the existence of God. Anselm gives many reasons as to why the simple understanding of God can help prove that God himself exists, as well as mentioning how the idea of God cannot be thought not to exist. Though this argument has been looked at by people such as Guanilo, a monk, whose response to Anselm 's proofs was trying to say that there were flaws, there are more reasons as to why Anselm 's proofs work well with his argument. From the understanding of God existing, and the idea behind greatness Anselm 's argument is one that is strong and can work as a proof when trying

In Proslogion, Anselm states that God is "a being than which none greater can be thought" (pg 73). He believes that God is truly the highest and greater being. Even for someone who does not profess God, the atheist; they too are making reference to God without fully understanding God. He believes that God exits even if we believe or not and admit it or not. This understanding is clear, however, Anselm has some questions. He believes God to be supreme but he questions it all and wonders who is God. God exists through God 's self and not through another and it is through him that we exist. Therefore, since God is the highest being and the Creator there is nothing that exists that can separate us from God. If it did than that thing or person would be God. He struggles with God 's actions though. If God is just why does he have compassion on both the good and the evil. He wonders why we say that God is all powerful but there are things in which he cannot do. God cannot sin, be corrupted or lie (pg 76). Instead of saying that God is all powerful we need to say that he is powerless and in his powerless he has power for choosing not to do those things. God alone is everything that we need to survive. God is not the things that we attribute to him because our simple minds cannot know the creator totally. We can know of him but only that in which he reveals to us piece by piece. It seems that Anselm has faith, believes in his heart but his faith is seeking understanding to know God

What Anselm tries to show next is that in this case, having an idea in the understanding requires one to admit that the thing exists in reality as well. For suppose that God exists only in the understanding. Then we can conceive of a greater being: one who exists in reality as well. Moreover, that would mean that this God who exists only in the understanding is not the greatest conceivable being. (Cottingham, 1996: 246)

For both men, the meaning of God is urgent to the argument. Anselm had expressed that 'God is that than which nothing more noteworthy can be imagined'. By this, he implied that it was impractical to consider anything more prominent than God and logically, it must be better for this God to exist in reality and not simply in the psyche. Along these lines, in the event that we acknowledge this definition, and Anselm felt that even Atheists would, we should logically presume that the best conceivable being must exist in reality, generally there would be the likelihood of something more prominent existing. In this manner, logically, God exists! Anselm's second type of the argument concentrated on God's 'important existence', again covering with subjects later proposed by