Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

Changing this debate to a debate about empiricism is a red herring and avoiding to say whether the "greatest thing ever concieved" is God and must in itself exist. Not all knowledge is based on observable facts. Have you ever seen anything by your senses that didn't exist? Yes, floaters, small, distant, invisible to our eyes, and optical illusions are things that are empirical sensations given to us by our brain that we think that those things exist, but that don't. Are senses infallible and our only way of knowing things? No is the answer to both question Have you ever seen The Matrix Triology or its fictional universe? Our senses can fool us, because we might be jacked into a super computer or wi-fi that is controlling or falsifying our senses. You can't prove anything outside your own conciousness exists because in order to have a conciousness, you have to have some kind of working brain that allows you to know what is going on. The philosopher Decartes discovered "I think, therefore I am!" making his own self existence (or your own existence) a measurement of absolute certain reality. No, saying that lower organisms or objects don't have a secret life that is intelligent like the movie and book The Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy is, in fact, unprovable until we have evidence, but we assume that it is true in the lack of evidence. As I have said before, the scientific method is helpful, but it is limited by human thinking in two areas: Casuality (two or more things that perform an action side-by-side to one another causes one before the other post hoc fallacy that one factor before it POSITIVELY caused another, like concluding that people die by priests reading their last rites, because afterward, a lot of people die. Actually, it is more likely that people close to death GO TO AFTERWARDS [1] and induction (all the variables we can observe.) [2] The narrative based on the available evidence, such as a fossil record, could be changed and subjected to the biased review of the scientist looking at all the evidence [3]. A darwinist might see a missing link, however a creationist might see a pigment in the fossil named Lucy. [4-5] All our narratives made by the biases of the people making the narrative because of how they were brought up. All of this is based on the same evidence that every person has, but has a different "narrative" that comes with it. [6] Are those people infallible? No. What I said was that people who believe in the religion of naturalism believe that nature was not intelligently designed by a higher or any being, rejecting the Teleological argument (we see design in the universe, which calls for an intelligent designer) because nature either goes back to infinity or somewhere down the line, is the cause of itself. I do not believe it, but there are people on DDO, or high level Ph. D. scientists (who are WAY more Liberal/Progressive/Leftist and Atheistic/Secular in their beliefs that say that those things happened by the Big Bang.... or something like that. Usually this well-knowlegded person interested, or has a job in hard science can win debates or use his/her credentials to win arguments on here. My point was actually that if we didn't observe the watch or website, like DDO, being created, we can't know how it was created, but the Secular Progressive says that the universe created itself and used a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to win a debate(s). This is rational thinking. I don't feel like repeating myself since my opponent cannot grasp the idea of "that which no greater thing can be conceived" is God and must exist. I'll just say that my opponent rejects the greatest possible thing thought of necessarily existing, because the argument is not based on sensory data. How could you possibly have UNDENIABLE evidence that "that which no greater thing can be convinced" doesn't exist, considering that you've thought great thoughts, such as a friend who is helpful, and that person exists (but doesn't need to exist, unlike the greatest thing ever thought,) why can't the greatest thing ever thought exist? You're arguing that we don't need rational thought, just empiricism, which is just cold hard facts that have no meaning or thought behind them at ALL. [1]http://www.logicalfallacies.info... [2]http://creation.com... [3]http://creation.com... [4]https://answersingenesis.org... [5]https://answersingenesis.org... [6]http://creation.com...