When we say that something exists, Kant argued, we "add nothing to" our concept of that thing - we merely say that there is something similar to that concept.It follows that no matter how many characteristics of a thing we list; we will still not have answered the question whether there is something having all those characteristics.The God, for them, is supreme, "needing nothing outside himself, but needful for the being and well-being of all things." (Pg. St Anselm’s account of the ontological argument for the existence of God deals with the ‘existence in the understanding’ vs.
His argument is that if God did not exist, then a being greater than God would be possible.
Yet through objections, such as Gaunilo’s Parody, it will be shown that the Ontological argument contains flaws.
Though there are substantial premises to the Ontological argument, the objection nevertheless rejects them; However, Anselm attempts to salvage his argument by then refusing the parody.
Many contemporary philosophers agree with Kant’s argument, but many others do not.
Furthermore, contemporary logicians have developed versions of the ontological argument that can even dispense with the controversial notion of existence as a property.