I was genuinely studying Astronomy (GEK1520). Really, like sidereal days, synodic months, annular eclipses and all. But next thing I knew, I had manoeuvred myself right into the thick of a battle between the Christians and the atheists. I really have a knack for this.
Now that I’m here again, I might as well present how Anselm’s argument fails. It’s not my own though. Here’s what William Rowe wrote (in my words):
When Anselm postulated the possibility of God, his work was done, actually. What we thought he was saying was merely that God could either be on the left side of our list (things which exist) or the right side (things which do not exist). That much is fine…until we factor in his premise that ‘existence is a great-making quality’. A-ha! He had us there. He was actually saying, in much clearer terms: “no non-existing thing can be God”!!! Because something that is non-existing will always have the possibility of ‘becoming greater’. Done deal from the start.
Crafty. He covered up the fallacy of circularity in his argument so brilliantly.
You may have noticed the defeat in my tone. I am. I mean I feel defeated, really. Hais. I just want to know the truth. This midpoint between oblivion and wisdom has me screaming and kicking inside. And what if actually…
WE ARE IN THE MATRIX