Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

For all those things of our senses being "possible," that means that there is a chance that our senses might be wrong, even if there is no current evidence for them. Senses are not the final say in finding knowledge. Nothing is infallible, but Anselm's ontological argument for God is, since it is the greatest thing ever thought. He counters by saying that it doesn't make "sense" or "the senses are even infallible." To the first point, what doesn't make sense about the greatest thing ever thought? Please explain how that doesn't lead to a perfect God. On the second thought, to say that the senses are incapable of lying to us, is factually unprovable. No one knows for sure if what their senses are telling them is true, even if everyone agrees with the person stating the fact. All things given to us by the senses and our idea of reality is completely true, which is a universal [1] positive [2] that is unprovable. "That which no greater thing can be conceived" and our own existence, is undeniable to the person reading this debate if he or she is a a being of reality, or at least to myself. Descartes, in addition to doubting the senses, he added the "dream hypothesis" where he realized that there is no way of telling whether what he believed he was dreaming or awake was really reality and which ones were dreaming and awake. He also ignored my examples of the senses falling us by saying that they need evidence. Saying that you need evidence to disbelieve them in order to discredit them, might be true in order to positively believe in them, but not outside the realm of possibility. He can't undeniably prove that. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." My critiques of the scientific method are based in UNDENIABLE truth, which my opponent is giving to the senses and the scientific method used by humans who can make mistakes. When talking about creation versus evolution, my opponent makes an Argument from Authority ("my argument is true, because experts say so and they are perfect") [3] and Appeal to Popularity ("any view held by most people is true and without flaw") [4] to make something in science true. To prove all three points about not always going with what professionals have come to a consensus, I cite that the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo, said that the world was geocentric, which it turns out with MORE evidence to not be true. The scientific consensus and experts were going with the consensus of experts of that day and pushing back against any differing views. They were going on the facts at the time (though Galileo had facts to differ from them, that they ignored because of their world view bias) and giving their own biased review of the universe and the Bible. Those viewpoints, which stifled debate, were created by fallible human beings based on their circumstances. [5] Furthermore, ad hominem attacks on my sources will not go anywhere, since they are baseless and trying to stifle debate. [6] Such attacks are used to avoid debating my facts and rational thoughts [7] (they can be accessed by anyone.) It would be irrelevant to what I believe or how I was raised based on what is true. [8] Just facts and logical thoughts are allowed in a debate. Saying that your argument is valid based on the scientific consensus, then saying that the scientific consensus is based on the argument, which is always true, is running around in a circle, logically. All solid thinking is based on RATIONAL thinking, not facts. You can't make any sort of thought or avoid logical fallacies, based on sensory data. My point is that the beliefs held true by science, are in the control of the people making the theories and laws. Everyone is biased and the narratives outside of the sensory facts are speculation, even if it is good one. Facts don't prove everything, which leads to my next point. There are other things that you cannot prove with UNDENIABLY with facts: the past existed and evidence was planted by someone else to fool you with the ability to not give any evidence for it. Both parts are unprovable until they can be proven in a court of law, but NOT outside the realm of possibility. That is where I am getting at. Facts don't undoubtably prove EVERYTHING. My point with making that a watch, DDO or any other website being created that we don't know its origins, it is LOGICAL, but not undeniably unlikely, that an intelligent being made those things and not a thing made out of nature. We can't know, just like the universe, how it was created, DEFINETLY. Yet, we use RATIONAL thought(s) to make sense of sensory facts, and most of the time, they depend on each other. My argument does not rely on empirical evidence. My opponent fails to answer the idea of the thought of God which is "that which no greater thing can be conceived" because it is not based on scientific evidence, because it is not based on sensory data and ONLY sensory data gives us facts. That is wrong. We use our rational thoughts to make sense of evidence. How can you picture the greatest thing ever thought, to not need to exist? In order to do that, you would have to know EVERYTHING and be EVERYWHERE to prove that it is not true. You would also have to see that if something great, like a friend who helps you, does exist, but doesn't need to exist, exists already. That is a great thought, but the greatest thing ever thought is greater than that and is the ultimate concept of anything possible. Surely that exists when other lesser things exist already. Belief in God is more than just faith, it is an undeniable fact, considering it is the greatest thing ever thought. He ignores this example. To critique my own debate, I did spell "thought" in the first post wrong and my opponent used only a couples source. One of them said that you can only find things factually by your senses. I don't have to bring up what was wrong with that RATIONAL thought. He ran around in a circle trying to change the subject about "that which no greater can be conceived" is not based on empirical evidence and that is all we can go for. That's not very smart considering he has a B.A. in Philosophy and he doesn't think that we need to make ANY rational thoughts regarding evidence or otherwise. Rejecting rationality puts you in the "la-la land" of philosophy, because you can't make sense of facts without rationality. For example, you can't just look at one source of information in politics, like Fox News or MSNBC, and expect to get a balanced and objective picture of the facts. Some may be more biased than others and show only one side, but it is important to get information from more than one worldview, using your RATIONAL mind. You also have to weight their biases and REASON if what they are saying is true. [9] In fact, avoiding logical fallacies on based on RATIONAL thoughts and not empiricism alone. Again, he ignored some of my examples, which made sense, and he didn't want to bring them out. Overall, he is very respectful in his analysis and I hope to debate him again on another topic. [1]http://www.dictionary.com... [2]http://www.dictionary.com... [3]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [4]https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [5]http://creation.com... [6]https://answersingenesis.org... [7]http://www.nizkor.org... [8]http://literarydevices.net... [9]http://thenonpolitician.homestead.com...