St. Anselm of Canterbury

In the following I will prove that the ontological argument itself is not enough to prove the existence of God. The discussion I discuss in detail has some questions to explain why "ontological debate" is not satisfactory. Canterbury's "big" St. Anselm's definition defines God as "can not be thought of as more than one" (Bailey, 2002). The problem with this definition is that the word "big" certainly applies to interpretation.

The first and most famous ontological debate was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury on the 11th. Century C. E. St. Anselm argues that in Proslogion, it leads to the existence of God from the notion of existence, not without a bigger concept. St. Anthom believes that if such existence does not exist, it can be imagined that a larger being, that is, a presence without a bigger existence - can be imagined. But this is ridiculous: there can not be anything bigger than an unthinkable one. So there is a bigger existence, not a god but a presence.

The ontological argument is widely believed to be first clarified by St. Anselm of Canterbury. And he defined God as the most imaginable being. Anselm 's reasoning is that if there exists only in the mind and not in reality, there is a bigger existence (exists in the mind and the reality). The famous 17th century French philosopher Ren © Descartes used an ontological argument. Norman Malcolm resumed an ontological debate in 1960. The diversity of ontological arguments has been endorsed and protected by contemporary philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga (whose arguments are based on modal logic) and William Lane Craig.

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.