Anselm begins the argument by establishing a basic overview of what he conceives, and what is generally believed, to be two types of existence. He outlines that when one can understand something, then it exists in their mind or “in intellectu“, even if he does not understand or believe that it exists in reality, “in re”. For ‘the fool’ to claim that he does not believe in God, he must accordingly hold the concept of God in his mind, and of course if he is to hold God’s image in his mind he must know a definition, which Anselm depicts as “aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit” or that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived. The atheist must then be able to conceive of that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived because otherwise, he should deny the claims that he understands the concept of God. With this established, Anselm goes on to the core of this argument. He asserts that that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived cannot possibly exist in the mind alone. He explains that if something can be conceived of in the mind, then coherently one must be able also to conceive of existence in reality. Anselm here makes a jump that has since been criticised for lack of evidence. Anselm declares that it is greater to exist in reality than just in the mind concluding that God, as the Greatest Conceivable Being, must exist in reality. In response to his critics, Anselm wrote an additional chapter for his argument. Although Anselm did not name these terms of existence, theologians have depicted that this argument determines the differences between “necessary” and “contingent” existence. In similar structure to his first argument, Anselm first lays down the obvious before explaining his point. He explains that something that exists “necessarily”, that cannot be thought of as not to exist, is far superior to that which exists “contingently” which may exist, but can also be conceived as not to exist. Now, Anselm makes his point that it is impossible for God to be...