Anselm's Ontological Argument Analysis

Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of god is done via “A Priori” argument meaning this argument uses mostly reasoning and definition to prove his point. Anselm begins his Chapter 2 argument with his own understanding of God, “I may understand that you exist as we believe you exist, and that you are what we believe you to be. Now we believe that you are something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). Anslem's understanding of God is a vital part for this argument. Throughout the chapter 2 argument the term “The Fool” is used to refer to those who are atheist. Anselm explains how although “The Fool” may believe there is no God, he certainly understands what he hears when Anselm states his understanding of
A necessary being, which “exists so truly that it cannot be thought not to exist” (Feinberg, p. 30) which is basically saying that the existence of this being depends on nothing else for its existence, the existence of this being is absolutely necessary. Anselm refers to God as this type of necessary being in his chapter three argument. Next a contingent being which is “A being whose existence depends on something else and therefore might not have come to exist.” (Feinberg, p. 683). An example of a contingent being would be a human as the existence of a human depends on their parents, being reliant on something for existence is what makes it contingent. We must admit that actually existing is far greater than the possibility of existing, thus a necessary being is greater than a contingent being. Anselm proposes that if the fool were to believe that there is no God, he would be creating a contradiction by his very understanding of God. His understanding of God being “Something that which nothing greater can be thought.” (Feinberg, p. 30). The contradiction is created as something greater than which nothing can be thought must be the greatest and actual existence is far greater than possible existence. By stating that God does not exist the fool is stating that God is and is not a
The same reductio ad absurdum is used in Guanilo’s argument that is used in Anslem’s. The proof starts with someone stating that there is the most excellent island in the ocean but the island does not exist, so it is called lost island. Because the island is lost it is also uninhabited; it is greater in resources than lands that are occupied by humans making it greatest. Guanilo can understand this idea so it exists in understanding. The argument then arises that the most excellent island must exist in reality rather than understanding. Otherwise the greatest island is and is not the greatest. Creating a contradiction. Therefore the island must exist in reality. So the greatest island that does not exist exists. This argument is supposed to prove how foolish Anslem’s argument is and the holes in his