The Concept of a Supremely Perfect Being

A very perfect being is omnipotent, transcendental, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipotent. However, these attributes converge for various reasons such as omniscience and totipotency. The meaning of Incoherency is that it is difficult to understand that a bachelor 's degree is married, for example, if a thought or expression lacks a logical organization that makes it difficult to understand. In order to say that perfectly complete existence is omnipotent (universal), they can do anything, including logically impossible things. result

"God is a very perfect being, there must be a presence in this perfection, the concept of God as perfect means that God must exist in reality, but if God If it is perfect, he must already exist. "The similarity between Anselm and Descartes' proof is shocking. Both thinkers believe that "there is nothing more than this". Both of these conclude that this great existence is perfect and that God must exist in reality. Both Descartes and Anthem use people who are not followers to show contradiction among people who understand the concept of God but who can not associate God with existence. Descartes removes the full meaning and characteristics of God to prove his existence, but Descartes still maintains the established status of the full existence of Anselm.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz saw problems on Descartes' ontological argument: Descartes did not claim consistency of the existence of "super perfection". He insists that ontological debate will fail unless it can prove consistency of extremely perfect existence. Since Leibniz thinks it can not analyze integrity it is impossible to prove that all perfection is incompatible. He speculates that all perfection can coexist in one entity and Descartes arguments are still valid

In the 17th century, René de Carte defended a series of similar arguments. For example, in the fifth meditation, Descartes claims to provide evidence that God exists within the concept of extremely perfect existence. Descartes believes that there is contradiction in imagining a very perfect existence that does not exist, compared to the idea of ​​a triangle whose interior angle is not equal to 180 degrees. Therefore, he believes that we have a very perfect idea of ​​existence - we imagined a really perfect being - we believe we must conclude that there is a perfect existence