The Ontological Argument as Proof of God

Instead of explaining what is actually meant by the term greatness, and explaining why particular aspects of a thing (such as, in this case, consciousness, ability and power) fall under that title, Popculturepooka has decided to re-affirm his bare assumption of Medieval Metaphysics; his assumption that certain characteristicsare objectively of the same type such that they fall under the heading "Great"; and suggested that the burden to show that this may not be the case lies upon me, the doubter of Medieval Metaphysical conceptions/valuations. In order to directly cast doubt upon the Medieval conception, as PCP has suggested I ought to be expected to do, I need only show that there are other plausible ways of conceiving of "Greatness", different things which can be meant by it, and then in order for Popculturepooka's favored Medieval conception of greatness to continue to be reasonably assumed as the objective truth of the matter, he would have to show how his Medieval conception of "Great" is of more merit than another conception. Now, I will give an example of what I take to be an alternative conception of greatness in order meet that burden that PCP has suggested that I have, and hopefully in forcing him to argue that that Medieval "Great" is more objectively valid than another conception, he will be required to finally be forced to give some reasoning to support those medieval assertions. However being that this is the final round, and I will not get a chance to respond to his response, I will also explain again why it is that I cannot see his Medieval "Great" being proved to be any more of an objectively valid standard than the one that I suggest. My competing conception of what is most great will be based upon the understanding that when someone speaks of degrees of “Greatness” they are discussing degrees of breadth, that is they are referring to how much the given thing encompasses. As such, with a greater thing being more encompassing, the greatest conceivable thing would have to be that which is all encompassing. Given this idea of greatness, it might be defensible to suggest that that “greatest conceivable thing” which encompasses all things must also be conceived to encompass existing things, but there is absolutely nothing within this idea of greatness that would support the idea that this “Greatest Thing” is, as an entity itself (as a whole), intelligent, able/powerful (as to “act” as an individual), or benevolent. Given such a meaning for “Great” the ontological argument could do no more than prove the existence of “The Universe”, and falls far short of proving God. Now, there is no particular “objective” reason to affirm this meaning of “Great” over others. Although this is among the most common thing which is meant when someone calls a thing “Great” there are other, separate, ways in which the word great is often used. Often “Great” is used as a personal, clearly subjective, valuation like in saying: “Well though you may not like Joan’s pumpkin pie.. I think it’s Great!” Now, with cases like this one the speaker doesn’t mean it’s objectively ranked in a particular spot of greatness in a Great Chain of Being, though they might pretend to, instead upon further questioning most people will admit that although they happen to enjoy the pie, that others may plausibly have a naturally different taste in pies, and that even if it would seem that most people would very much enjoy it, as we’re all seemingly pretty similar, the valuation of “greatness” might still be subjective in that it might not be tasty to the pallet of a tiger. Then there’s this other use of the term “Great” which PCP discussed, that in which things are evaluated to be better or worse than other things. As with Anselm’s example of a Horse being greater than a tree. This kind of ranking, if left unexplained, can be taken to be one of those subjective uses of great to convey that something carries your personal approval, or taken as truly worthless as one cannot tell what is meant. Now if the person has explained to say that what they mean by “Greatness” is “intricacy of systems” then the statement about horses and trees is comprehensible, meaningful, and correct, as horses are more intricate than trees. However, without any further explanation as to what is meant the statement can at best be understood as a subjective affirmation of approval, as was that regarding Joan’s pie. Now, given the complete lack of explanation as to what “greatness” means, and lack of explanation as to how the attributes of Benevolence, Ability, Existence, and Intelligence qualify to fall under the heading of “Greatness”, it would seem that, as with the pie, calling these things “great” is seemingly either completely meaningless, or is an affirmation of personal/subjective approval. If, as I’ve requested from the beginning, PCP can explain what it is meant by “greatness”, and say how the supposed attributes of God all epitomize that characteristic (as opposed to their opposites, like Capriciousness), then he may have successfully made Anselm’s argument meaningful (though I won’t get an opportunity to respond to it). If not, then not.