‘Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God is convincing.

’
Evaluate this statement.

On one hand, Anselm’s argument is a very convincing argument to prove the existence of
God. The majority of people, atheists and theists alike, accept the definition of God to be the
greatest being, as this is the definition most people are given of God. If we accept this, then
we also have to take into consideration that anything is better in reality rather than in our
imagination. Therefore, if God is the greatest being, he must exist to be the greatest.
Anselm’s argument is an a priori argument, meaning it relies on definition rather than sense
experience. This is arguably a better argument, as all our senses could interpret something
as slightly different and also our senses can deceive us. By using an argument that relies on
definition, it is universally applicable if you accept this as the definition of God.

On the other hand, Anselm’s argument is only valid to you if you have certain beliefs. For
instance, this argument is only valid to you if you believe in the existence of God. This cuts
out a lot of people who have different beliefs and religions, for only Christians believe in God.
The being that Anselm describes as the necessary being that must exist could be altered to
fit any religion, and therefore does not prove the existence of God. Furthermore, the
Ontological argument is based on knowing God’s nature; that he is omnipotent, omniscient
and omnibenevolent, however God is so ‘transcendent’ and so above us that we can never
truly know His nature. This makes the argument invalid, because it is based on assumption
rather than true definition. 
Anselm’s argument is also not very convincing because of his assumption that everything is
better in reality. This can be proven wrong by concepts found in nightmares such as
monsters, giant flying spaghetti beasts and other terrible situations. All of these would be
much better in our imagination compared to reality. This proves Anselm’s statement; “it is
better to exist in reality than only in the mind”, incorrect. Therefore, it is possible for
something to be better in our imagination than in reality meaning that even if God is “a being
than which none greater can be conceived,” then it is possible that God only exists in the
mind, meaning that it is possible for God not to exist, proving Anselm’s argument
unconvincing.

In conclusion, Anselm’s argument for the existence of God is not very convincing, as it is
based on accepting a definition of God that not everyone may accept, the logic behind it
doesn’t fit as some things are better in your imagination rather than in reality, for example
Pennywise. As well as this, while God may be considered a necessary being compared to
everything on earth being contingent beings, it could be applied to necessary beings from
other religions.