Refutation of the ontological argument even when all the basic assumptions are accepted

Good week. The answer you gave is a bit unfair (with all due respect). What is more basic within the definition of “greatest” – that it also exists in the real world or that it is so great that it cannot be denied that it is the greatest? Pain, for example, is a pretty absolute truth in our world because if you are fair you will never deny it and even if there is a true skeptic who does, he still will not agree to put his skepticism to the test by someone smashing a hammer on his finger to prove that there is no pain. In other words, the feeling of pain is a truth that is very, very difficult to deny and therefore very real (so real that no one would want to put themselves to a test of doubt about it and in addition it can be proven even to someone who denies and is not willing to put themselves to any test – like a skeptic, an extreme fundamentalist or anyone else). Therefore, it seems to me that one of the parameters for an absolute truth is that it cannot be denied in any way because how is it possible that there are truths that are not “absolute truth” That their very existence “obliges” you to believe in them more than that absolute truth, and what, if anything, is the advantage of that absolute truth? Incidentally, the fact that people can be wrong or that there are fools who manage to deny the ”existence” is irrelevant because it is contradictory - if the ”existence” were real enough (absolute truth, absolute existence, etc.) they would not have *the* possibility of denying them (as in the example I gave). Then it also turns out that the ”existence” and the ”absolute truth” are different things, and this is also a contradiction in terms. And of course, you can claim concealment (among us) or Maya (among the Indians) and any other claim to settle this, but then you are already back to “religious” arguments and not relying on the ontological proof.

Regarding the second part: It is also impossible to conceive of the greatest "there is" (!) We can only conceive of the possibility of conceiving such a thing. After all, for us, infinity is a great thing that continues to grow without end, even though we understand that this is not its meaning. We cannot grasp an infinite idea in the mind, only to assume that it can exist. In other words, I only say with my mouth that I can conceive of such a thing, but in practice I have no idea of any detail of it because it is too big for me to understand what it means to "be the greatest that cannot be greater than". Therefore, here too, if I conceived that there is a "there is" so great that its greatness or truth cannot be denied, then it is possible to conceive of it.

I don't know what's unfair. Your assumption is completely baseless in my opinion. That's all.

The ontological proof proves that the one who thinks about it is more perfect than God, for he created God in the vanity of his thought. This fact, this basic premise, does not need clarification. It is clear beyond all doubt to the prover of the proof and to its believers.

“It is also impossible to conceive of the greatest “there is”(!) It is only possible to conceive that it is conceivable that there is such a thing.” This is not an assumption, it is a fact.
And what is the difference between your answer and the fundamentalism or skepticism that you oppose? After all, I explained my position and you replied without reasoning.

Rabbi, why can't the atheist simply say, "Now that I understand that existence in reality is a necessary addition to God's perfection, I can't imagine such a thing." And then the sentence doesn't work?

He certainly can say. When the premises are denied, the conclusion can certainly be rejected. But it is not clear whether he is right. Even if he does not accept the existence of a necessary being, I do not see what has changed in the matter that he can conceive of it. This is the sting in Anselm's argument. He is not talking about the atheist's beliefs but about definitions, and there is no reason to think that after the argument the definition has become empty.

That is, the atheist can actually bring it to mind, and therefore by definition he is obligated even if he says it orally, and therefore he is not truly an atheist (this is what is meant by revealing to him the diamond in the vault that you mention in your lessons). But what does it really mean to “bring it to mind”? We bring to mind something that we do not understand and do not know what it really contains or does not contain (after all, you really have no thought or perception at all) – So what is the connection between perfection (or greatness) according to my definition and according to someone else's definition, and anyway how do I even know how to define for myself what it includes – After all, just as you agreed, if it included in practice that one of the perfections is also the inability to deny perfection in others – that would nullify the sentence. I understood that you do not accept at all that it includes this – but how can one decide? Self-study?

We understand and know, but we don't always understand the consequences. Someone who knows the axioms of geometry but doesn't know that the Pythagorean theorem follows from them, do you think he doesn't really know them? I disagree.

He knows – it's true. But it's not the Pythagorean theorem – here one of the axioms is not clear in practice, only in theory. You say that you understand the *meaning* of perfection in all senses/absolute truth/the greatest and what does that mean? I'm talking about understanding the thing you're talking about – understanding the ”existence” and what it includes, not the possibility of estimating that there could be an existence with such or such sublime parameters. How can one understand what an idea of perfection is that there is no greater? Or are you claiming that the mere fact that someone says that he “can conceive that there exists a being that is the greatest/most complete” in theory already obliges him to fulfill what that perfection or magnitude includes in himself – and in any case it obliges him even if he doesn't know the details because of the very initial admission that he himself can conceive of such a thing?

I see no point in continuing. I explained what I had to explain. We are repeating ourselves.