The Ontological Argument is a Failure

I. The Ontological Argument has never been very popular amongst debaters (for good reason). I will attempt to prove that the OI proves absolutely nothing. ==Rebuttals==Con's argument boils down to the following:1) We cannot imagine a greater being than God because nothing greater can possibly be conceived. There is a flaw in this very first premise. If God exists only as an idea in the mind, then all this means is that we can indeed imagine something that is greater than the idea of God in the mind -- not greater than a God who actually exists. This first premise commits the fallacy of equivocation; namely, you cannot define something into existence. Specifically, you rely on two separate meanings of the word "God" they are: A god who exists in reality; and A god who exists only in the mind. Apparently, you have switched between the two definitions that suits him. 2) If God does not exist, then something greater can be conceived. Yes; however, "the greatest possible being that can be imagined" is not God who exists only as an idea in the mind--therefore, there is no contradiction. Apparently, as I already mentioned, you only create a contradiction using the equivocation fallacy. 3) Therefore, God must exist. The logic is relatively simple, and if the two premises are accepted, the conclusion necessarily follows. Because both premises are true -- the first one is an obvious a priori truth, the second is based on the argument that existence is greater than non-existence -- therefore, the conclusion is true. The Ontological Argument proves that God exists. The resolution is negated. Epic fail! The fallacies that I am attempting to show makes it a bit clearer if we more broadly define each "God" that is defined by the onto-illogical argument God 1: A god who exists. God 2: A God who exists as an idea in the mind. Therefore, the argument goes like this: Nothing greater than God-1 can be imagined God-2 exists. God-1 is greater than God-2 If God-1 does not exist then we can imagine something greater than God-2 (i. e. , God-1) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God-1 Therefore God-1 exists We see the fallacy being committed. Finally, to quote Keith Augustine:"The mere concept of what God is does not entail his existence. While we may conceive of God as having the property of being all-powerful (say), existing is not a property of a thing at all. (More specifically, existence is not a perfection. ) So the second premise is false. God's existence concerns whether our concept of God corresponds to anything real, and pure reason cannot tell us that (unless the concept of God is self-contradictory, in which case God cannot exist). We can show that the classic ontological argument fails by keeping the erroneous second premise and replacing the first one with: "Utopia is the most perfect ('the greatest') society conceivable. " The parallel conclusion that Utopia (or "the greatest car," or whatever) must exist is clearly false. Only observation could determine that such things exist. " [2] Remember: One cannot define a being into existence. Once again, I affirm this resolution. Vote pro. ==Reference==. http://skeptico.blogs.com...;2. . http://www.infidels.org...;