y. As Anselm himself points out, a painter may have the completed work of art in his mind, but that does not make it a real painting. (Cottingham, 1996: 246)What Anselm tries to show next is that in this case, having an idea in the understanding requires one to admit that the thing exists in reality as well. For suppose that God exists only in the understanding. Then we can conceive of a greater being: one who exists in reality as well. Moreover, that would mean that this God who exists only in the understanding is not the greatest conceivable being. (Cottingham, 1996: 246)Now we have a contradiction. Now come to the case of God. The GCB would have to be wise, because a wise being is greater than a being that is not wise. In addition, the GCB would have to be just, because justice is better than injustice. What Anselm is claiming is that the GCB must also exist, because a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists merely in the understanding. So: It would be a contradiction to say; "God (the GCB) is not wise"It would be a contradiction to say, "God is not just."In addition, it would be a contradiction to say, "God does not exist."There are many arguments as to why Anselms argument is invalid. I have chosen three of them, and have illustrated how these arguments make Anselms proof invalid, and possible ways around there counter-arguments.Analytic vs. SyntheticThe most basic criticism of Anselm's argument is that he tries to prove a synthetic statement as if it were an analytic statement. Analytic statements are those that can be said to be true or false by reason alone. For example: "A triangle has four sides", is an analytical statement and it is false because it is against the definition of a triangle. Also analytic is "There is an infinite number of prime numbers". This is true, although it is a lot harder to prove. However, reason alone can do it. No additional sensory information is needed. There cannot be any d...
