St. Anselm had argument about God being self evident had two parts. First I will explain the part involved with his argument about how to tell if if a proposition was self-evident or not. St. Anslem explains that with logic a proposition is self-evident when the predicate of the proposition has implied the essence of the proposition already. He explains this with two examples, one that talks about how a triangle has three sides and that is self-evident because the predicate of three sides in implied when talking about a triangle and the second example he gives is chalk being white, it is not self-evident because no where in the statement does it imply that the chalk is connect with the color white. Now when the statement “God exists” is said you know that it is a self-evident proposition because the word exists is already implied in the essence of God. St Anselm also had an argument between real existence where he realizes that God can exist not just in reality but the mind as well, and between logical existence where God is in reality but also is a being that cannot be thought not to exist.
There was a monk named Gaunilo who rejected St. Anselm's ontological argument, he did believe just like St. Anselm that God God in fact does exist. He believes that the existence of God is based purely on faith and that is where the argument is because St Anselm believes that God exist through faith and reason. He also brought up the Lost Island metaphor saying that through having faith the island can exist but by having no doubt and being told something greater exists he is a fool for believing without any proof, and he also says “ God will not be the only being of which it can be said, it is impossible to conceive of his non-existence.”(Vital Source). St Anselm refutes this by saying “But I say with certainty that if it can be so much as thought to exist, it must necessarily exist.”(vital source) He is claiming that if it is logical and has reality that his argument still exist even without having faith.
A proposition that is self-evident is the word triangle, we know once it is said that is has the essence of a three sided shape. The meaning is in the word. A statement that is not self-evident is “Chalk is white” because n no way does the work chart have the essence of being white. Chalk can be all different colors so we see that the statement does not have self-evident properties.
A proposition that is self-evident in itself but not to us is the statement “God exists” and that is because we do not know the essence of God. A proposition that is self-evident to us and itself is that man is an animal and that is because predicate of an animal is the essence of a human being.
Atheist have a belief about what they do not believe in. Agnosticism is about knowledge and what you do not know.
The demonstration of the proper quid is a reason of fact showing us why things happen. Demonstration quia is from effect to cause.
A contingent being is something that is perishable and needs a necessary being to exist. A necessary being that is a nonexistent thing that contingent being derive from.
The ontological and cosmological arguments differ in two ways, the first ways is right at the starting points when St Anselm in his ontological argument begins with the definition of God and then in St. Thomas in his cosmological argument begins with our experience of the world. The second point they differ at is how the base the principle of their argument. The ontological argument is based on the principle of contradiction saying that things cannot be and not-be in the same respect, at the same time. The cosmological argument states both the principle of contradiction and the principle of causality saying that there are several versions and every effect absolutely must have a cause.
Logical existence is based on the fact what you can determine through reality. Real existence is what you know to be true in your reality.
The lost island is all about deception and if you are choosing to believe that in the truth without seeing it. St Anselm is saying that there is a way to see the logic and reality of its (God's) existence.
Descartes has methodic doubt meaning he rejects all beliefs that no one has ever been deceived. The doubt of the skeptic is all about God's existence and how you can believe in a higher power but not God and how skeptics cannot exist.
The argument from contingency is all about how we see things that are not possible and possible, this is the discussion of things that are perishable. He talks about how if everything was contingent meaning everything is able to go out of existence, then by now we would have realized that nothing would exist now. In that case he brings up that since things still do exist there has to be an imperishable being and with that comes to the understanding of God.
A thing cannot move itself because it is either the moved or a mover because that is a self contradiction if it is both due to the fact that it would mean perfection. With an example of cold water if it is the mover and is moved and cannot become hot and not hot because it is not possible.
It would not be possible for there to be only one being in existence if that being is a contingent being is because by being contingent that means it is perishable meaning that it become erased from existence so it cannot stay in existence.
It is not possible for a thing to exist on its own due to contingency that is why you need a necessary being.
Yes you can have this perfection in an essence because it comes with the words being self evident.
There are two possible candidates that Descartes rejects the first is sense experience, he rejects this because of the dream argument and how we do not know if we are currently dreaming or not therefore proving that we cannot rely on sense experience as a means of knowledge. The second one he rejects in mathematics from the dream argument because of our senses we do not know what is certain like mathematics, if we have faith in a higher being he can be deceptive and what might seem like fact could not be true.
In meditation 2 the mediator finds that the minds has far better knowledge then our body of senses, we can perceive through our mind that truth. He found that the truth is through perceiving as he had the metaphor of wax. This truth is absolute beyond doubt because was we perceive outside of the world it can be doubtful but we can with certainty confirm our existence and our mind.
It is crucial to figure out the truth for descartes because he feels lost once he realized that he did not form his own opinion of his truth. Knowledge is truth and by having truth you must understand knowledge and because of this descartes can make the claims of perception.
The cotigo statement confirms that he exists as a mind with his own ideas and by knowing that he has challenged the ideas of skepticism and solipsism. When it comes to human nature we can see that Descartes sees us as things that are able to be uniquely itself through knowledge.