|
Personally I have a few issues with Anselm's Ontological Argument.
However, I think it is a little easier to understand if you formulate it without using the whole God exists necessarily.
1. We can imagine a being greater than which nothing can be conceived which does not exist.
2. We can imagine a being greater than which nothing can be concieved which does exist, and is thus greater than the being which doesn't.
3. Therefore, a being greater than which nothing can be concieved must exist.
In my opinion this doesn't really add up and appears to be little more than semantics...
|