Anselms Ontological Argument

In the second chapter of Anselm 's Proslogian, Anselm later offered something described as his ontological argument. This believes that he is very powerful Psalm 14: 1 Fool He his heart, No God. Anselm's assertions are as follows: God is unimaginable If someone understands something, this means that in someone's understanding, bigger ones can not be imagined If someone understands, Someone can imagine without big things exists in someone's understanding. In Anselm 's ontological argument, he is trying to prove the existence of God, but his argument is purely based on a discussion of thought and does not require a moral entity to challenge the truth of emotion. Ontology is related to existence or something. Anselm 's ontological debate is considered to be omnipotent and kind, regarded as existence and whether it is God's wealth, and omnipotent. This argument is a transcendental argument. Instead of relying on experimental knowledge to prove the existence of God it means that God must exist logically or that the absence of God is illogical. Ontology argument is a transcendental argument. These arguments are trying 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 the aforementioned St. Ansell and Renà © Descartes of Cantabelli. If he does not exist, you can still think of a big existence (it is like saying that God does not exist except this existence). The presence must still be one of the attributes of God, as it can still understand the larger God (God that exists) by removing it. The most common problem of this discussion is that it only enumerates its existence in God's attributes, not it. This argument seems to indicate that the facts that can be imagined should be true. Antism 's ontological argument is intended to be the first testimony of the existence of God. Anselm star ts with the premise that it does not rely on experience and draws the conclusion of the existence of God in a purely logical way. His purpose was to refute the fool who said in God that there is no God (Psalm 14: 1). This fool has two important features. The following is an attempt to clarify the discussion presented in Chapter 2 of Proslogium. The discussion in Chapter 3 is quite different and is more interesting in some ways. After completing this page, you may try to give a similar gloss with the second parameter. This is not easy. This argument is very complicated. But you may do this in a useful campaign