hat there are features of the world which lead the mind to that which goes beyond experience. What is the cause of everything? Why is the world as it is? And the moral argument suggests that we all have an intuition of God (along with freedom and immortality) every time we experience a sense of moral obligation.1.1. Ontological argumentAlthough the ontological argument for the existence of God looks, at first sight, it has fascinated philosophers ever since st. Anselm had the good fortunate it. Nearly every major philosopher from that time to this has had his to say about the existence of God. The root of the argument is found in Plato and later on, more or less is an explicit form it is found in the writings of st.augustine.in Plato, the “ideas” were considered to be more important, more valuable and fundamental than the existing things. Further the idea of the good, which for Plato is nothing less than God, for Plato, the “essence” was of greater worth than “existence” and in this sense he would maintain the spirit of the ontological argument.The argument was most clearly stated by Anselm .later on it was re-stated by Rene-Descartes, this argument was also accepted by G.F.Leibniz, by G.W.F.Hegel andJohn caird. The argument has a long and illustrious line of defenders extendingto the present and at the moment including, Charles Hartshorne and Norman Malcolm. However, there have been powerful opponents of the ontological argument as well, namely, st. Thomas Aquinas and Kant.The nature of the ontological argument is first of all the ontological argumentis a prior argument. an a priori argument is one which doesn’t rely on the evidence of the sense, the world around us or which doesn’t depend on any elements from experience, for either its premises or any element from experience, for either its premises For its conclusion but rather it moves by logical stages to a conclusion which is self-evidently true or logically necessarily. and typically, the conclusion of the argument not merely that God exists, but that he exists necessarily, that is to say, he not only does exists, he could not have failed to exist.The ontological argument is an explicative argument. The argument only explicates or explains or opening up which is already pre-contained in the ideasof most perfect being.The ontological argument is also deductive argument. The premises of a deductive argument contain the conclusion that it reaches, and the argument is structured in such a way as to make the conclusion the only possible one that could be deduced from its premises.The ontological argument is also analytic. The argument is analytic because it is necessarily true by its very definition itself.This argument also throws up some of the questions, like
Is existence a property?
Are existential propositions ever necessarily true?
Are there some objects that do not exist?
If so, do they have any properties?
Can they be compared with things that don’t exist?These issues and a score of others arise in connection with st. Anselm argument.1.1.1. ANSELM’S VERSION OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTAnselm took recourse to the proof with a view to strengthening his faith, and justifying one’s belief in God. For him faith is a necessary precondition of understanding of God. Anselm has given proofs in two separate pieces and they have to be interpreted jointly for a correct appraisal of the argument. For him God is abeing greater than whom nothing can be either in thought. But such a being can be either in thought as well as in reality.For it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another thingto understand that it exists, and another thing to understand that it exists………..But clearly that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot exist in the understanding alone. For if it is actually in the understanding alone, it can be thoughtof as existing also reality, and this is greater .Therefore, if that than whichis greater cannot be thought is in the understanding alone, this same thing than which a greater cannot be thought is that than which a greater can be thought.But obviously this is impossible. Without doubt, therefore, there exists, both