Descartes Ontological Argument

Similarity's and Differences 

Written in the 16th century Descartes shares some similarity's with Anselm in his ontological argument, both are a-priori  and both view existence to be greater than none existence.
The arguments however differ on a few key ideas. Descartes avoids a logic leap made by Anselm by describing God as the greatest possible being  , this is opposed to describing God as an idea of which Anselm does and as a result runs into the problem of jumping from concept to reality in his conclusion.
The arguments also differ in how they relate god and existence. Anselm sees existing (verb) as something that God does while Descartes sees existing (predicate ) as a quality that God possess.

The Argument 

1. God is the supremely perfect being.
2. The supremely perfect being has all perfections
3. Existence is a perfection 
4. Therefore God exits necessarily 

Language Problems 

When we say the adjective 'young' we use it to say that x object possesses the quality of youth.

An adjective derives from a quality possessed. 

When we write 

                           God exists 

It is undisputed that God is an (abstract ? ) noun and the subject of the sentence 

However is 'exists' a verb or a predicate ?

Descartes writes from the perspective that existing is a quality that God has rather than something that he does. The problem with this is that just because God possesses existence, it does not mean that is is performing the actual act of existing. 

The Ontological Argument (Attempt 2) + reading plans

1st part 
God is a being than than which nothing greater can be conceived
The fool says 'there is no God'
It is greater to exist in reality and concept as opposed to concept alone
Therefore the fool is a fool as you cannot except the concept of God without excepting his existence.
2nd part
There is something that exists that we cannot conceive to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is inconceivable i.e it exists necessarily).
This is greater than something that can be conceived to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is perfectly viable i.e it exists contingently).
As a result, if God contingently then what you are thinking about is not God.
God is that which cannot be conceived to not exist, God is necessarily.
And so therefore he exists.


Plans 

So while I have not been blogging about it I have been doing my reading. I'm currently reading 'A thinkers guide to evil' as-well as 'The brothers karamazov ' I shall write what I think of them as soon as I find time between ukcat revision.
Having been doing  St Augustines theodicy and realized the massive influence that It has on the lore of the fictional universes greater by games workshop I think it would be fun to analyse the parallels and the influences in what may come to be the nerdiest thing I have ever done (as-well as something that Mr G can appreciate) 

The Ontological Argument

1st part 

God is a being than than which nothing greater can be conceived 

The fool says 'there is no God'

It is greater to exist in reality and concept as opposed to concept alone

Therefore the fool is a fool as you cannot except the concept of God without excepting his existence.

2nd part

There is something that exists that we cannot conceive to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is inconceivable i.e it exists necessarily).

This is greater than something that can be conceived to not exist (the idea that this thing doesn't exist is perfectly viable i.e it exists contingently).

Therefore If god exists purely in the mind then what you are thinking about is not God (and so therefore he exists ).

So my head hurts a lot now it kinda feels like a turtle on its back trying to right itself...

I'm also no longer sure that I have the right arguments in the right bit so that something i'm going to have to go over yay.