> [Comment: "Being" is not to be construed necessarily as a living thing, but rather in the most general terms of a noun -- basically anything which can be referred to as "that".

This is an interesting point, and it eliminates one of the best arguments against the proof. The next paragraph is copied from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/anselm.htm.

"Gaunilo, a contemporary monk of Anselm, wrote an attack on Anselm's argument titled 'on behalf of the fool.' He offers several criticisms, the most well known is a parody on Anselm's argument in which he proves the existence of the greatest possible island. If we replaced 'an island than which none greater can be conceived' for 'something than which nothing greater can be conceived' then we would prove the existence of that island. Gaunilo's point was that we could prove the existence of almost anything using Anselm's style of argument. The ontological argument is therefore unsound."

>I think Anselm goes on to prove that being A, also denoted as God, has other properties which we common ascribe to it, including being "creative, rational, omnipotent, merciful, unchangeable, just, eternal..." (from the page at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.html), but I haven't read further than this basic argument.

A living island is greater than a dead island, a creative island greater than an uncreative, a rational island than an irrational, an omnipotent than one of finite power, etc. Eventually, as one adds to it all the concepts of greatness, the island loses all the qualities that made it an island and gains all the qualities that make it God. The definition of "great" presents no difficulty: each definition is used for the appropriate characteristic.

Even in language, the brain must hold something as primary, as needing no definition. Otherwise, every word is defined in terms of every other word, resulting in a big meaningless tautology. "Goodness" and "greatness" are two concepts which exist independently of the definitions we assign to the words. Anything can be assigned a value of goodness or greatness, and a specific definition can then be invented to fit that situation.

At any rate, I still don't get the proof. It seems like it becomes circular at some point: "How do we know this ultimate being exists outside our imagination?" "Well, if he doesn't, then we can imagine a yet greater being, which requires that he is absolutely real." "And how do we know that this one exists outside our imagination?" "Well, if he doesn't, ..."

gab"Purposeless post, but fun ideas"by