Can I play, too? 
First off, this guy claims he's in a 4 year uni course.... oh whoopydoodie-dooo... (not in his 4th year, mind you)
I've completed a 5 year uni course on physics, followed by a PhD on Fusion plasma physics and a few more years of working on some of the world's largest nuclear fusion devices...
How's that for credentials?
PhD means I am a doctorate of philosophy!, so take care!
Now, Anslem (and Gretel)... "If I can conceive of god, then that god exists", or as the wiki tells us "Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality."
The very christian Aquinas defeated this argument a long long time ago... back to the wiki for a full text: "Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God's existence in his Summa Theologica, objected to Anselm's argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument. His rejection of the ontological argument caused other Catholic theologians to also reject the argument."
Oh, look, not only Aquinas, but also "Catholic theologians" have rejected this argument...
I think you need to go back to school...
In the meanwhile, just keep reading the wiki! It's amazing the sort of stuff you may learn in just one page!
"Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) developed a version of the ontological argument meant to prove God's non-existence. It was not intended to be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.
Gasking asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's ability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist."
Also "Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; once exclaiming: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!" However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." He drew a distinction between existence and essence, arguing that the essence of a person can be described and their existence still remain in question."
Why should I have to be a philosopher when others have done such a fine job at debunking your argument and all I have to do is show you their reasoning?
First off, this guy claims he's in a 4 year uni course.... oh whoopydoodie-dooo... (not in his 4th year, mind you)
I've completed a 5 year uni course on physics, followed by a PhD on Fusion plasma physics and a few more years of working on some of the world's largest nuclear fusion devices...
How's that for credentials?
PhD means I am a doctorate of philosophy!, so take care!
Now, Anslem (and Gretel)... "If I can conceive of god, then that god exists", or as the wiki tells us "Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and then argued that this being could exist in the mind. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality."
The very christian Aquinas defeated this argument a long long time ago... back to the wiki for a full text: "Thomas Aquinas, while proposing five proofs of God's existence in his Summa Theologica, objected to Anselm's argument. He suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument. His rejection of the ontological argument caused other Catholic theologians to also reject the argument."
Oh, look, not only Aquinas, but also "Catholic theologians" have rejected this argument...
I think you need to go back to school...
In the meanwhile, just keep reading the wiki! It's amazing the sort of stuff you may learn in just one page!
"Douglas Gasking (1911–1994) developed a version of the ontological argument meant to prove God's non-existence. It was not intended to be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.
Gasking asserted that the creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable. The merit of such an achievement is the product of its quality and the creator's ability: the greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. Non-existence, Gasking asserts, would be the greatest handicap. Therefore, if the universe is the product of an existent creator, we could conceive of a greater being—one which does not exist. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist."
Also "Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, accepted the argument; once exclaiming: "Great God in Boots!—the ontological argument is sound!" However, he later criticized the argument, asserting that "the argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies." He drew a distinction between existence and essence, arguing that the essence of a person can be described and their existence still remain in question."
Why should I have to be a philosopher when others have done such a fine job at debunking your argument and all I have to do is show you their reasoning?
