Belief in God is irrational

I'd first like to apologize in advance for the philosophical density of this post, however, it's only fair that a philosophical argument begets a philosophical response (in much more laymen terms for I am by no means a student of philosophy). *I will at times refer to the Ontological Argument as OA The Ontological Argument for the existence of God and its rationality is an interesting topic for sure, but not an overly difficult one to rebut. Even in the 11th century it was invalidated by Anselm's own, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, which I will explain later. This priori argument wherein its premises are predicated upon axiomatic truths is arguably Anselm's greatest fault. It assumes that just as we know 1+1=2, we know that God exists. Axioms, as we know, cannot be proved or used to postulate a truth, nor is proving anything's existence via conjecture; in doing so we would be opposing our definitions above on what is logical or rational. Because of this, I will stick with my original contention that not only is the belief if God irrational, the Ontological Argument is too, irrational for believing in the existence of God. As we know there are many different forms of the OA, however they are all guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. Let's state the argument again: 1. God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable. 2. God exists in the mind 3. To exist in both reality and in the mind and greater than to just exist in the mind Conclusion: God must exist in reality as well as the mind; if God did not, then God would not be the greatest being conceivable. Fallacy of Equivocation: essentially interchangeably using the same word that has two different meanings http://onegoodmove.org... First off, giving an attribute to something does not necessarily means it exists. Just because we are able to construct something in our minds, does not mean it exists in reality. "I am able to construct a 30 foot goose in my mind". Does a 30-foot goose exist? Of course not. Minds do not conceive beings or real entities, they conceive concepts, or in Anselm's case, his mind conceived a concept of a being (God). Another analogy: Just as artists don't draw humans (or whatever), they make drawings of humans. God therefore does not exist in our mind, the concept of God exists in our mind. By Anselm argument, concepts=reality. And this my friends is as irrational as it gets. For example, I'll conceptualize in my brain that the flying unicorn is the greatest God conceivable, and by the Ontological Argument, flying unicorns thereby exist in reality. Ontology by this definition then requires all conceivable superlatives to be real, just as we conceived flying unicorns. For example: •This statement is truer than any other statement that has ever been proposed" •Real truths are truer than statements that are merely true proposition. •Therefore the above statement is true. The most truthful statement ever, actually. See the problem with this? This now begs the question: does our ability to conceive something set a limit for what exists? Kant summarizes this perfectly while criticizing Anselm's OA: "Something can be defined without existing, or be defined while existing; but nothing can be defined as existing, by defining it into existence" •Sound arguments have sound premises. •The Ontolological Argument has zero sound premises. •Therefore the OA is unsound or irrational. Again back to Anselm and his reliance on equivocation. He takes one term (God), while simultaneously cherry-picking which meaning he wants to attribute to this term. He does this by defining two Gods •A: the one that exists in reality •B: the one that exists in the mind In point 4 he states, "God who only exists in the mind", but in 5 he makes us think that he's referring to the God that exists in reality. Let's rephrase it to exemplify this equivocation throughout: 1. Nothing greater than God-A can be imagined. 2. God-B exists. 3. God-A is greater than God-B. 4. If God-A does not exist, then we can imagine something greater than God-B (ie. God-A) 5. However, we cannot imagine something greater than God-A 6. Therefore, God-A exists. Another problem with Anselm's argument is that he fails to define "greatness". I know we had agreed to keep the semantics to a minimum but this is important. This statement begs the question: why is existing greater than non-existing? This assertion by Anselm (To exist in both reality and in the mind and greater than to just exist in the mind), is predicated upon one's personal opinion. As I stated earlier, trying to prove something through conjecture or axiomatic truths goes against what we defined as logical and or rational. Likewise, the statement "Heaven is better than life on earth". This axiom holds true by many, if not all, theists, but again is predicated upon one's personal opinion. I argue that we cannot prove something's existence via circular logic, like the ontological argument and many other "proofs for God's existence", in a rational way. Just like: •How do you know God exists? •Because of the Bible •How do you the Bible is valid? •Because it's inspired by and is the word of God. Another problem with Anselm's argument is that we can conceive a greater God than the biblical God. We can all come up with at least 5 character traits that we would change of the biblical God. This end-all God as described by Anselm argues that it is the greatness of all the Gods/unable to make better. So I beg the question: by virtue of conceptualizing a greater God than the biblical one, does it make my God 2.0 exists in reality? I'll let you decide. This is exactly what Anselm argues/"proves". Another dilemma Anselm's argument faces is that it can be applied to any being or object conceivable, also as Gaunilo saw it as so: #1.Flying unicorns are the best creatures conceivable. #2. Unicorns exist in my mind. #3. It is more beautiful for flying unicorns to exist in reality, and in my mind, then to just exist in my mind alone. Conclusion: Flying unicorns thereby exist in reality; if they did not, they wouldn't be the most beautiful creatures conceivable. I'll allow you think of something in your mind that you want to exist really badly. Does it now exist? Did it appear to you? Was it irrational for you to think that it would? As any 2nd grader can now figure out, mere belief in something in one's mind, does not necessarily allow it to exist in reality. For such a belief is unequivocally, irrational. So: What we've argued so far is that belief in God is irrational by pointing out character/biblical flaws-- to which the Ontological Argument was presented as rational proof for His existence--to which has been subsequently rebutted as irrational. I await my opponent's rebuttal or new thoughts on the irrationality of believing in the Christian God. Sources: http://onegoodmove.org... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.existence-of-god.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...