The ontological view and the Creator

“Here suddenly comes another assumption that the perfect being is also the Creator… This assumption has not been proven nor has it been argued so far… This is an unclear logical leap, which does not fit the rigor that has characterized his words so far”.

And later you explain that this is an assumption drawn from Anselm's religious world (and not from the ontological argument). I want to argue that it does arise from the argument, as I wrote. Do you agree? And if not, why?

Why is a creator God greater than one who does not create? The question is what he can do and not necessarily what he does. It could perhaps be said that this is parallel to Anselm's assumption that an existing God is greater than one who does not exist (although in this he is probably wrong). In any case, even if he could have assumed this, the leap he makes does not seem to base it on it, otherwise he would have had to say so. It is clear from the course of his words that this is an assumption taken from his religious world.

A. Mikhi: “The question is what he can do and not necessarily what he does.” If you are honest, the claim can be refuted by saying that he can exist in reality. But that is not necessarily what he does.
B. If we assume that there is a Creator and we know that God has the power to create, we should not create additional Creators. In any case, it is clear to us that He is the Creator. And indeed, this does not stem from our very perception in our minds that He is perfect.

A. This is just gibberish: existence is not a capacity (and on this very point there is a criticism of Anselm, which I commented on). When a person is a bully, it is not conditioned by the fact that he will actually lift a large weight, but by the fact that he can lift it.
B. It is possible, of course, but as I wrote and you also wrote here, it does not stem from his being perfect.

A. I can survive in the desert for 3 days without water. Why is the ability to survive not a capacity? (Where did the Rabbi comment on this?)
B. It would be possible for Occam's razor to cut at full force, yes?

The ability to exist is indeed an ability. Existence is not an ability. Excuse me, are you sure you really don't understand all this on your own?

Sorry for the rant, but the Rabbi said: “This is just gibberish: existence is not a capacity (and on this point itself there is criticism of Anselm, which I commented on).” There is a situation where the Rabbi explains to me in detail what the content of the gibberish is and what the Rabbi’s approach to that gibberish is. And what is the Rabbi’s comment on this point of Anselm’s? I haven’t read the book, only the responses. I don’t understand what understanding of one thing within another I missed here. (If Anselm’s claim is about the capacities of the perfect being, then Anselm only claims the capacity of the perfect being to exist but not its actual existence. And this contradicts the Rabbi’s agreement that the definition of the perfect being is also its actual existence if the attribute of existence is required for perfection.) Again, sorry for the digging. I am grateful that the Rabbi is addressing all my digging. Happy Hanukkah!

If you haven't read it, please read it. That's why I wrote the notebook/book.