Essay --

In the mind of Anselm he had noticed that there needs to be something that follows from all of this: if a being is perfect by definition, then that being must exist. Anselm believed that if a perfect being did not exist, then it would not be perfect. In which it would be impossible for God not to exist, for if He did not exist, there would be no definition of a perfect being. God is a â€Å"necessary being.† The example of you and I as perfect beings is not conceivable because we are not necessary beings, in our past if there were any change, then we would not exist. God is however different, He had to exist. This entire concept is known as the Ontological Argument. Though the Ontological Argument is very precise in being able to prove that there needs to be an existent perfect being to be able to have a perfect being. There are several flaws within this argument. For all of Anselm’s arguments to work, we would need a notion of content of his proposition that God is the highest human conception. We would also need a correlation between the conception of â€Å"being† in a general way of matching up to the idea of a â€Å"Supreme Being.† The problem that Anselm has is that there is not a â€Å"being† that matches up to the type of â€Å"being† that God is. If God were in existence, he would have to be in separable parts and divided into many places if he were to consist of being omnipresent. So He cannot be a perfect â€Å"one† being unless he was multiple beings of reality. What Anselm also didn’t cover was the fact of God being a Personal God. When Anselm came up with the line of reasoning known as the Ontological Argument. His argument provides no place or a need for the perfect being to be personal. Which is a big deal being a christian, believing in Inc... ...understanding. Which would mean that this person was greater than God. But nothing can be greater than God. Hence it is not true that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. In conclusion, the formulation of the argument from a metaphysical assumption and both philosophical and theological argument takes its false standpoint that builds up an entire edifice on assumptions that weren’t questioned back in Anselms’ day. Anselm then could not question whether â€Å"being† was continuous or discontinuous across cultures which philosophers developed much later. The argument is thus flawed insofar as it relies on a definition of the Supreme Being that is conditioned by human reason, while also assuming giving positive, univocal identification to created â€Å"being† and Supreme Being. Resting his theory in general on a divine exemplarism, which has not yet been proven.