Anselm's Ontological Argument

Since the beginning of time, humans have encountered many situations that have led them to ask philosophical questions about God’s existence. The existence of God is a difficult philosophical question for any person to answer. Although there may never be an easy explanation for the existence of God, ancient philosophers such as Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas have written about God’s existence in their work.
In this paper, I will discuss Anselm’s ontological argument which begins with the definition of God and ends with the existence of God. I will first introduce the premises and the conclusion of the argument, which is that “God is the greatest” and “Therefore He Exists”. Secondly, I will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the argument,
“It is a conceptual truth that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined, the greatest possible being that can be imagined” (www.iep.utm.edu). The conclusion is “Therefore He exists”, which means that there is a God, the God of the Christian belief, the God of the Bible. The conclusion also, while stating that God exists, indirectly means that since God exists, the story of Creation, and so on, must be true. Therefore, since the premises is correct, the conclusion must also be
However, this argument should be considered strong because it deals with the idea of an absolute, supreme being, or otherwise contradictory lesser being. “The concept of which nothing greater can be thought turns out to be marvelously fertile. God must, for example, be omnipotent. For if he were not, we could conceive of a being greater than he. But God is that than which no greater can be thought, so he must be omnipotent” (www.plato.stanfordedu). Therefore, if God exists, He must be the greatest because He is omnipotent and there is nothing even close to God in rank. “There is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality” (www.iep.utm.edu). But if He did not exist, there would have to be something almost as great, which there isn’t, so it is a contradiction, and the question is set up implying that God does exist, with a premise that is true, which leaves little room for a counter attack. So, what is the counter attack towards the argument? First off, it is a general statement, it is short and sweet, but covers a very broad topic, without considering little details to support it, which makes the argument be conceived as weak. If you were explaining Anselm’s ontological argument to an atheist, someone who denies God’s existence, but not necessarily believes there is no God, you would