Saint Anselm’s Ontological Argument has generated philosophical excitement reaching beyond its era and well into our times. Anselm's ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence (The Ontological Argument 2016). Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds through pure logic to reach the conclusion that God exists. His purpose is to correct the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). This “fool” has two specific features: 1) He understands the statement that God exists. 2) He doesn't believe in God’s existence.
In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm says that we believe that God is a being in which nothing greater can be conceived(. …show more content…
The same holds for another formula of his: whatever is thought is in thought (Sidiropoulou 2009). In our understanding there are many things that do not exist in reality. Anselm now says that a being in which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding. But it cannot exist only in the understanding because for it to exist in reality is greater. Therefore the being in which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist only in the understanding, for then a greater thing could be conceived which would exist both in the understanding and in reality. The argument in Chapter III is …show more content…
Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. This obviously is an impossibility. This is the heart of Anselm’s argument. His trick is to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone. He starts his argument by contrasting existing in the understanding and in the reality. This by itself is not a
In Chapter 2 of the Proslogion, Anselm says that we believe that God is a being in which nothing greater can be conceived(. …show more content…
The same holds for another formula of his: whatever is thought is in thought (Sidiropoulou 2009). In our understanding there are many things that do not exist in reality. Anselm now says that a being in which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding. But it cannot exist only in the understanding because for it to exist in reality is greater. Therefore the being in which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist only in the understanding, for then a greater thing could be conceived which would exist both in the understanding and in reality. The argument in Chapter III is …show more content…
Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. This obviously is an impossibility. This is the heart of Anselm’s argument. His trick is to show that God cannot possibly exist in the understanding alone. He starts his argument by contrasting existing in the understanding and in the reality. This by itself is not a