St. Anselm & Proof and Probability
A Priori (proof the premises and conclusion are not dependent on external evidence or experience), Analytical Proof (conclusion is proof contained in the premises) and a deductive argument(set of premises which moves toward a logical conclusion).
It created the conclution that God is real based on being able to define God on the rule of premesis. 1) God is the greatest possible thing, 2) God would be perfect only if he exists, 3)Therefore God exists.
St. Anselm- Defines God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Things that are in existance are better than not existing.
Criticized by Gaunilo of Marmoutier (same time as Anselm). Argued that you can not jump from defining God to God exists. If you apply logic to an island, the perfect island you can images then it must exist in the world. This is illogical.
Plantinger Criticized Gaunilo saying that you can not compare God to an island. Islands have intrinsic maximum (you can always add things like more trees) you can not do this with God.
God is extremely perfect or a predicate. Which is a nessisary character of something. Like existance is a nessisary predicate of God. Saying god does not exist is like saying a triangle does not have 3 sides. it is illogical and self-contradictory.
Kant Criticized René. Denying God and a non 3 sided triangle is illogical. There is no contradiction to premises. Just because you can define something does not make it exist.
Gotlob agreed with Kant suggesting that there are 1st predicates, which are the nature of things like God being omnipotent. And 2nd predicates, which are concepts like God exists, it is not necessarily a necessity for God to exist though.
Plantinger suggested the idea of Possible world to solve the problem( like JFK working in mcdonalds). There are possible worlds that exists maximum greatness or excellence. For this to happen all world must have God to exist.
i agree with Davis' view that the idea of possible words are possible. Meaning that God himself is a possibility not actuality. Further more, i additionally agree with Russell's views on Anselm's theory. This is that the notion for the existence is syllogism. Like 1) a man exists, 2) Santa is a man, 3) Therefore santa exists. Existence is not the property of things. Therefore my view is that the ontological argument is fundamentally flawed.