Yeah don't just do Anselm, here's what I'd do:
Intro
- Type of argument: deductive, a priori
- What it does: Seeks to prove God through reason alone
- Who's involved: Anselm main, Galnio criticsed, Descartes reformed and a few others (no need to name them in intro)
Anselm
- Who he is: Christian, 13th Century Monk
- Sought to prove God to non-believers (the fool)
- His first argument:
God is the greatest being conceivable
Something can be in the mind alone, or in the mind and exist (Sorry forgot exact phrasing)
It is better to be in the mind and exist than just the mind alone
Therefore God exists
- Then goes on to say it is foolish to say God does not exist (reductio ad absurdum), because that would mean there was a greater being than God
Galnio
- Criticised this saying he can imagine a perfect island, doesn't mean it exists
- The fool has the right t evidence
Anselm
- Came back and said it only works for neccessary things, which God is
Descartes
- Develops Anselm’s argument
- Existence is part of the essence of God / a predicate
- It is contradictory to think if him and then deny his existence
- A triangle is the sum of two right angles, God involves existence
- ‘Cogito ergo sum’ - you can only rely on reason, all other arguments can be doubted
And if you've got time...
Malcom
Resurrected the argument in the '60's
If God came into existence now, he would not be God
If God does not exist now his existence is impossible s he’s eternal
It is not, so God’s existence is necessary
In the same way, God is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent
His argument is only accepted by believers
Why prove something to those who are already convinced? Anselm was aiming at the fool