Thinking about a necessary being › How can someone deny what cannot be conceived otherwise?

Chapter IV addresses an apparent conflict. If God's nonexistence cannot be conceived, how can the fool deny it? Anselm distinguishes thinking through words from understanding the thing those words signify. A person can utter or entertain words that do not express a fully grasped possibility.

The distinction has an intelligible use. Someone can repeat a description before working through its implications. Recognizing that possibility does not show that Anselm's own description has the implications he claims. The distinction explains how he reconciles denial with his conclusion, but it cannot independently establish that conclusion.

A critic therefore need not accept being classified as someone who merely fails to understand. The critic can identify a specific step, such as the real-existence comparison, and explain why it remains unproved. This directs attention toward reasons that can be examined rather than toward the presumed intelligence or sincerity of either participant.