admit of conceptually maximal qualities. Anselm's assumption here is that if I understand claims about God, then we may say that God exists in my understanding or in my mind. B is a being that instantiates all the perfections and suppose. (2) Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone. Simson (London, Kegan Paul, 1896) Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, translated.M.D. (3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. We will have to discuss the cogency of this assumption in class.
If any of the properties that are conceptually essential to the notion of God do not admit of an intrinsic maximum, then Anselm's argument strategy will not work because, like Guanilo's concept of a piland, the relevant concept of God is incoherent. To say that something which was dependent on nothing whatever was superior to anything that was dependent on any way upon anything is quite in keeping with the everyday use of the terms superior and greater. But these two properties seem to contradict each other. Those of the first set are dependent for their continued existence on gentle handling; those of the second set are not.
Nothing has no qualities whatsoever. So let us suppose that this is the case: (f) Suppose that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. Now you should ask: Is this a valid argument as it stands? Both versions of Anselm's argument rely on the claim that the idea of God (that is, a being than which none greater can be conceived) "exists as an idea in the understanding." Similarly, Plantinga's version relies on the more transparent claim that the concept. From which it follows that our supposition (f) is false. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality. In general, positive and negative existential claims can be established only by empirical methods.
The ontological argument in major philosophers: This argument was developed first.
It was critized and somewhat ambivalently rejected by Thomas Aquinas.
Anselms s, ontological Argument is stated, and a few standard objections to his argument are listed.
Anselm s ontological argument for the existence of God.