Hi Vincent, how would you explain Anselm's ontological argument for god's existence? Thanks so much
How do I explain it? As pointless. As I find all ontological arguements to be, really.
Such arguments deal only with concepts, not with anything verifiable. As I said before, a valid logical proof is not the same as proving something true in reality.
Anselm's argument is a huge fail. He states that the god in our minds can always be surpassed by imagining a greater one. This is a statement without any sort of supporting evidence. It is pure speculation. But even if we accept this bogus statement, Anselm follows this up with a statement that we can't imagine anything greater than God. But this is where he is (in my opinion, deliberately) deceptive. He's equivocating. His use of God in that sense is of an actual, existing god. But his previous point has nothing to do with an actual god, but that we can always imagine a god greater than the IMAGINED god.
In the end, it proves nothing whatsoever.