According to the Ontological Argument, the existence of God can be proven by merely appealing to the definition or idea of God. Here is a formal version of the argument:

2) Existence in reality is a perfection

.:3) God has existence in reality (God exists)

St. Anselm (the philosopher/theologian that first formulate the Ontological Argument) uses the accepted Western theological definition of God to base this argument on. Anselm’s definition of God is as follows: the being than which none more perfect can be conceived. The second premise is interpreted that it is more perfect to exist in reality than to not exist in reality and be a mere thought, an idea. So, according to the definition, God would have to exist in reality in order to be God, because if he didn’t then someone or something else would be more perfect than God, and that is simply not possible if God has all perfections. Let me give you an example of what would be more perfect going along with the same school of thought.

1) Possessing a tree that grew money (or whatever), along with the idea with such a tree

Some topics in this essay:
Ontological Argument, Traditional Western, Based Meinong’s, Argument Meinong’s, Pure Objects, Immanuel Kant, World Series, pure objects, ontological argument, St Anselm, god exists, premise 2, meinong’s theory, world series, premise 1, objection premise, exist reality, definition god, Argument Question, premise begs question, class pure objects, god simply god, argument objection premise, pure objects exist,