His first form of the argument runs as follows: (P1) God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (P2) If God exists in the mind alone (in intellect) then a greater being can be conceived (in re) (P3) God to be the greatest being, has to existing the mind and in reality, otherwise another being would be greater than God. (C) Therefore God must exist both in the mind and in reality. This method of reasoning aims to demonstrate the truth of something by reducing to absurdity the very opposite of what you are trying to prove. In Anselm’s case this would be that God does not exist, which he claims is absurd by means of an argument which he claims is logically necessary. For Anselm, God cannot not exist.
The actual existence of this being is a greater thing than merely a concept or understanding. Therefore, that than which nothing greater can be thought must exist both in the mind and in reality. Descartes' ontological argument is an a priori argument, which means that it is based upon reason, rather than empirical evidence or experience. Descartes stated that God is a being with all perfections. He goes on to say that existence is a perfection.
He argues that ‘the fool’ in Psalm 53 can conceive of God but fails to believe he exists. Anselm believes in a concept called in re and in intellectu, this involves the idea that if something is in the mind then it will always be greater in reality, for example money or a painting. Anselm applies a method of reasoning called reductio ad absurdum to prove Gods existence and make other possibilities seem ridiculous. Gaunilo of Marmoutier, a contemporary of Anselm, proposed an objection to Anselm’s argument in his work ‘On behalf of the Fool’. Gaunilo argues that just because someone can conceive of something it does not make it a reality and that there is not one way to conceive of God - the very fact that Gaunilo was arguing with Anselm proves that everyone coneives of God differently.
All humans have a set of basic beliefs about Gods existence, which determine our views about the existence of miracles. Theists, also known as realists, believe that God literally exists as a real divine being, and this includes the characteristics, which are intrinsic to Gods existence of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence. A traditional view of theism is also called realism, as they believe God to be a real entity and not just a projection of human imagination. Extreme liberal supporters who believe that God is simply a projected of human imagination are called anti-realists. They say that God does not exist in an objective and real sense; they do not think he is a real human entity existing in the world.
Examine the view that the cosmological argument provides an explanation for the world and is a trustworthy basis for belief in God? (21) The cosmological argument is an à posterioriargument based ultimately on the existence of the cosmos, and the indication it leads to a supreme being generally identified as God. The existence of the universe, the argument claims needs an explanation or a cause, the only appropriate cause for this could be God, this argument is based on experience rather than theoretical logic. Aristotle claims ‘if there is movement and change then there must be an unmoved mover’ although there is one huge problem with this, why does God have no cause? Most scientists argue that "God" is not a scientifically proven cause, whereas Aristotle would argue that God is ‘a remote and unchanging being who allows his world to be changeable so that it can gradually move towards the perfection which he already enjoys.’ A further fault with this would be the principle that the universe can’t explain its own existence, Why is it here at all?
An argument against this however is the cause of God. Experience shows that nothing can be the cause of itself. The first cause argument also states that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It also defines God as the uncaused first cause because he is the only being capable of existing without a cause. The second premise of the Kalam is that the universe began to exist.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument The philosopher Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument debates the existence of God to be very much true. Anselm concepts God as a being in which nothing greater can be conceived. He also iterates that this being is too the greatest that one can possibly imagine. Therefore, for God to be the ideal concept of perfection, he must too in fact exist in reality and not just the mind, as in the understanding. An atheist, whom may not believe that God actually exists in reality, surely understands the concept of what God is so he then exists in his understanding.
Furthermore experience is one of, if not the, principle way of gaining knowledge and forming ideas. It helps people form concepts and especially form ideas that would not otherwise be formed. Rene Descartes argued that some ideas were innate and he attempted to prove this with a deductive argument in which if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Through this he convinced himself that God was real and seeing as only God could have implanted the idea of God into him that it must be innate. This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe.
Ontological argument is the argument for the existence of God, based only on premises derived only from logic reasoning and analysis. It is a priori, which means independent of experience and observation of the world. First of all, St. Anselm assumes that God is the greatest being that ever could be or the greatest being thinkable (GBT). The GBT is the greatest being possible, it puts “limitation on intelligence”, or in other words, it is impossible for human being even to think of another being that is greater than the GBT. Therefore, St. Anselm states that if what you are thinking about still allows you to think of something that is greater than the GBT, then you are thinking wrong about the GBT.
Explain Anselm’s ontological argument (25) Anselm uses an a priori argument bases on reason to prove gods existence, underlying all Anselm’s points is the idea that god must exist in reality by his own definition. Anselm begins by pointing out that even fools (atheists) can understand that god is the greatest conceivable being as it is what makes god who he is. However the fool dispute Anselms idea that god exists in reality, the fool is convince that god exists only in our understanding. Anselm says that the fool is silly, if he was only to exist as an idea in our understanding a greater being could be thought of meaning god would no longer be the greatest conceivable being. Therefore God must exist to meet his definition; those who deny