A question about Thomism

[Belacqua]

As you rightly point out, a suntan cannot have existence independent of a human being (it would be like a grinning cat disappearing and leaving a grin behind) but that is also precisely why one oughtn't make a comparison of the two. They don't fit in the same class of being.

Well, OK, they're not in the same class of being.

But one depends for its existence on the other. Therefore it is ontologically dependent.

And the grinning cat is an excellent example; it is absurd to imagine the existence of the ontologically posterior thing in the absence of its ontologically prior support.

Anselm's Ontological Argument argues that since God is, by definition, the greatest there is, and since the concept of God in fact exists, one is obliged to  assign existence to an actual God, because an actual God is greater than a mere concept of one. Setting aside the absurdity of making existence an attribute, the argument relies on treating an actual God and human thoughts of God in the same ontological class (which to an atheist is true, but for the purpose at hand, they are apples and oranges).

I'm not sure why you're changing the subject here.