Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent. In order for us to have understanding and think up our representation of the divine God there must be existence of him. How else would we be able to imagine a perfect holy being that is above all? If there is understanding of this being, the knowledge to imaging this being up had to come from somewhere, and this is how Saint Anselm tries to prove Gods existence. …show more content…
He states that Saint Anselm’s argument is impossible for the mind to grasp, and that imaging up anything to perfection can be done on anything, and the example he used was a tropical island. Saint Anselm counter argues back at Gaunilon that there is no perfect definition of what a tropical island could be unlike God. God does have a perfect definition and is not imagined as lacking any perfection. In God’s perfection he must exist in reality and not just in the mind in order to be the most perfect of all. This topic is a bit over my head for the fact that I never though this complex before about God. I can see Saint Anselm’s idea being well supported, but everyone has their own reality and ideas of what perfectionism really is? Does God have different forms, and personalities