“Here an additional assumption suddenly enters: that the perfect being is also the Creator… This assumption was neither proven nor even claimed up to this point… This is an unclear logical leap, which does not fit the rigor that had characterized his words until now.”

And later on 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 actually is drawn from the argument, as I wrote. Do you agree? And if not, why not?

Why is a creating God greater than one who does not create? The question is what He can do, not necessarily what He does. One might perhaps say that this parallels Anselm’s assumption that an existing God is greater than one that does not exist (although on that he is probably mistaken). In any case, even if he could have assumed this, in the leap he makes it does not seem that he bases it on that, because otherwise he should have said so. It is clearly apparent from the flow of his argument that this is an assumption taken from his religious world.

A. Michi: “The question is what He can do, not necessarily what He does.” If what you say is correct, then one could refute the claim by saying that He can exist in reality, but that is not necessarily what He does.
B. If we assume there is a creator and we know that God has the power to create, we should not posit additional creators. So it is clear to us that He is the Creator. And indeed, this does not follow from our very conception in our intellect of a perfect being.

A. That is just hairsplitting: existence is not an ability (and it is precisely on this point that there is criticism of Anselm, which I noted). When a person is strong, that is not contingent on his actually lifting a great weight, but on his being able to lift it.
B. That is of course possible, but as I wrote, and as you also wrote here, it does not follow from his being perfect.

A. I can survive in the desert for 3 days without water. Why is the ability to exist not an ability? (Where did the Rabbi comment on this?)
B. Possible, meaning that Ockham’s razor cuts with full force here, right?

The ability to survive is indeed an ability. Existence is not an ability. Forgive me, but are you sure you really don’t understand all this on your own?

Sorry for grinding away at this, but regarding what the Rabbi wrote: “That is just hairsplitting: existence is not an ability (and it is precisely on this point that there is criticism of Anselm, which I noted)”—could the Rabbi perhaps explain to me, please, what the content of the hairsplitting is, and what the Rabbi’s approach is to that hairsplitting? And what is the Rabbi’s comment on this point of Anselm’s? I haven’t read the book, only the comments. I don’t understand what inference I missed here. (If Anselm’s claim is about the abilities of the perfect being, then Anselm is only claiming the ability of a perfect being to exist, but not its actual existence. And that contradicts the Rabbi’s agreement that the definition of a perfect being also includes its actual existence, if the property of existence is required for perfection.) Again, sorry for the pestering. I am deeply grateful that the Rabbi responds to all my pestering. Happy Hanukkah!

If you haven’t read it, then please read it. That’s why I wrote the booklet/book.