Ontological Argument (Anselm's)

Oddly enough, it seems that this silly little work of deductive brilliance is still within my realm of thought.

The Argument, as Anselm puts it, can be simplified easily enough.

1. God exists in the "Understanding"
--This is derived by Anselm assuming that an individual who can state "There is no God" must have an understanding of God that can therefore be denied.

2. Existence in Reality is greater than existence in the "Understanding"
--For Anselm, this is implicitly obvious given the terms and phrases he is using with regards to the tradition he comes from. This is noteworthy as the way most folks argue against this proof. Prima Facie arguments such as, "20 bucks in my pocket in actuality is much better than the idea that I have 20 bucks in my pocket" or a counter argument, "Communism is always better in theory than in practice." It seems to me that this premise should probably be taken at face value as true - Given Anselm's definition of God, as 'that being which none greater can be conceived' it would seem fair and within the realm of charity to grant that a "being" is better in reality than simply the idea of it.

3. God is the greatest of all conceivable beings

and therefore

4. God cannot exist solely in the Understanding, but must exist in reality.


Anselm's actual argument is a Reductio ad Absurdum where he draws out the steps differently to display a contradiction.

1. God exists merely in the Understanding (says the Fool)
2. If something exists merely in the Understanding, then something greater can be conceived (namely the actual existence of the thing).
3. God is the greatest of all beings.
4. This leads to a contradiction, God is the greatest and a greater can be thought of.
Therefore, 5. It must be false that God exists merely in the Understanding.

-----
My unorganized ramblings are the result of my thoughts which are centered around this argument. First, it must be admitted this is a work of pure beauty and genius. Second it's dead wrong.

Many challenge the second premise (existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind)...but why?

Anselm makes a mistake when he says that God exists in the mind.
First, he's being circular (or begging the question) if we understand that his point is to prove that God exists. He begins by asserting that God exists (in some fashion)...which is part of his conclusion.

Let's not attack it this way.

Instead, let's challenge the first premise carefully.
The "Fool" does not have "in his heart an understanding of God as "the greatest of all beings." The Fool might simply have in his or her heart an affirmation of strict finitude.
That is, The Fool could be atheistic by stating that "All existent things are finite things" We could draw this out categorically to deny God (understood as something infinite or as having infinite properties) fairly easily.

Brilliant - but purely wrong.