Perfect Island Objection by Anselm of Canterbury

As I learned through course studies and lectures, due to my prejudice against Anselm 's ontological debate. I hope that Descartes aside these prejudices, present two articles on his "first meditation" to explore the two aspects of the discussion and try to reach independent conclusions. However, I would like to get the same conclusion as before - that is, ontological arguments can be argued based on fundamental differences between concepts of existence in our minds and concepts of reality I can do it.

The ontological debate was first criticized by Gaunilo of Modern Marmoutiers of Canterbury Anselm. He believes that ontological arguments can be used to prove the existence of something using full island analogies. This discussion was also criticized by famous Catholic philosophers Thomas Aquinas, David Hume and Emmanuel Kant. In order to correctly understand ontological arguments, it is necessary to identify the meaning of philosophers when talking about 'possible world'. "Possible world" may refer to facts contrary to facts. For those in "a possible world", it simply means that its existence is logically possible.

Perhaps the most complicated and challenging argument for the existence of God is an ontological argument proposed by Anselm of Canterbury. According to Anselm, God exists in God with the most perfect concept of existence - the existence which can not be imagined - because there are essentially perfect and nonexistent beings as large as existence. Everything is perfect, no one exists. This discussion has a lasting influence on philosophers; some believe it will try to 'define' the existence of God while others keep it and continue developing a new version I will.

Ontological arguments are transcendental arguments. These arguments try to prove the existence of God from the meaning of the word God. Anselm of Canterbury introduced an ontological argument to his work 'Proslogion'. The classic argument of Anselm is based on two principles, the most important of which are St. Anselm and Rene de Carte of the above Canterbury. If he does not exist you can still think of a larger being (as you said that there is no God other than this existence). Presence must be one of the attributes of God. Because by removing it it is still possible for you to understand the bigger god (the god that exists). The most common problem with this discussion is that it only seems to enumerate the existence of God's attributes and does not seem to indicate it. This argument seems to indicate that any fact you can imagine should be true.