The Ontological Argument of St. Anselm (Valid?)
An Ontological argument is speculating and analyzing the existence of a being based purely on logical or cognitive approach. Hence, it is necessary that one idea is parallel to another idea. Such that, A is equal to B and B is equal to A, therefore A is equal to B. It cannot be, A is equal to B, but B is not equal to A, then A is not equal to B.
Let us try to peruse the Ontological argument of St. Anselm.
- Fool believes God does not exist but God exists in his mind, therefore God exists.
- This is how he proved that the ‘fool’ is guilty of self-contradiction. One cannot deny something without understanding the thing being denied. Hence, the ‘fool’ denies the existence of God but the act of denying presupposes that the God exists in his mind.
- A thing that exists in reality is of greater value than the thing that exists only in the mind. That is, if an ant exists in reality and God only exists in the mind, then the ant that exists in reality is greater than the God that exists only in the mind. This is absurd because God is a being that than which no greater can be conceived. Thus, God must exist and God exists in reality.
Let us apply his method
If we affirm that the cliché “There is no such thing as perfect” to be true and we concur that “God is perfect” the implication is: God is a perfect being and there is no such thing as perfect, then there is no such thing as God because nothing is perfect.
What I am trying to elucidate is that the idea of perfection should be parallel to the idea of a God because if we believe that there is no perfection and God is perfect/ion, then there must be no God.
This kind of reasoning is neither flawed nor erroneous but it does not apply in reality. All ideas do not essentially be parallel to prove one thing to be true or not to be true. Life is a unity of opposites and not of logical but unrealistic events.
