Let me shorten the proof. It becomes:
We can think of the infinitely influential being. Because the being is infinitely influential, He exists outside our imagination.
For them, who is not getting it:
Can you think of Pink Dragon? Yes. So, it exists now in your brain cells. A creature inside the mind is less influential, than the creature in outside Reality. But because the creature in the mind is infinitely influential, it is Real in outside also.
Here is another clear version.
The Ontological Argument
Anselm's ontological argument purports to be an
a priori proof of God's existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists. His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). This fool has two important features.
- He understands the claim that God exists.
- He does not believe that God exists.
Anselm's goal is to show that this combination is unstable. Anyone who understands what it means to say that God exists can be led to see that God does exist. On this view, the atheist is not just mistaken: his position is internally inconsistent.
This does not make sense. For example, I have no idea what a god is. Is it green with four arms and five heads? Is it a Pagan god? African god? Most ideas have their foundation on already existing ideas. A pink dragon exists as a thought not in reality. The foundation is the dragon. Who thought of what a dragon is supposed to look like? And the color? Which color pink? Rosemary? Hot pink? Does the dragon have three heads or one? Was from a book, a movie? What
is a dragon in reality depart from our ideas and imaginations?
1. I understand the
claim that god exists. Many claims are actually logical arguments. It's only a claim. Get beyond the claim, now what?
2. This is a statement of belief. Go further to those who know god does not exist, it becomes a statement of fact. You can't change facts. It's no longer a claim that a dragon "could" exist because we thought of it as an idea. Now the dragon
does not exist and when we think about it, we are entertaining a figment of our imagination. Nothing wrong with that.
The pink dragon that's influential to a kid running under the bed does not mean the dragon exists in reality. Many people hear voices and see things that do not exist; yet, they experience it. If they did exist in reality, then psychology wouldn't find a need to treat those who have anxiety over what they think is there that is not. Since people have anxiety and unhealthy behavior over a non existent voice or sight, the experience or result is part of reality
not the subject itself.
The subject is not real just because one is influenced by it.
By "God" we mean an absolutely unsurpassable being, a being that cannot conceivably be improved upon.
If you can't think of the idea of a Pink Dragon, it can't be perceived, then it does not exist. How is someone influenced by something they cannot perceive?
The ignorant claims god does exist.
The knowledgeable claims god does not.
The fool gives proof of its existence.
The wise admits there are none.