The classical ontological argument for gods existence proposed by Anselm of Canterbury can be summed up as
- God is the greatest possible being that can be imagined
- If that being existed in reality it would be even greater than the being I am imagining
- Therefor that being must exist in reality.
A common counter to this argument put forth by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers is the greatest possible " " where " " could be an island or some other object. Because that " " does not exist it is taken to mean that the ontological argument is wrong.
I would submit that this counter argument by working implies the existence of a being or force which transcends logic and could therefor be considered God or at least God like.
My argument is thus: If I define a new object X, with properties Y, which includes existence(Z), because X does not come into existence it falls into a logical paradox of Y containing Z (by definition) and not containing Z (by observation) at the same time.
Note this new definition does not violate Kant's objection in Critique of Pure Reason to using the property of existence to prove the existence of a thing because it is the creation of a new thing via definition rather than the definition of a thing with may or may not exist. IE I may not prove God's existence by defining him to exist but I may craft a set of properties of which existence its one.
The fact that X does not come into being by being defined to exist implies that there is a force or being external to logic preventing it from existing which could fairly be called God as it is outside of the nature laws of logic. This is more of conjecture but it also seems that this force or being acts toward keeping order in physical reality as it prevents conscious beings from defining things into existence.
Is there any clear error with my process on this?
*much thanks to Philip Klöcking