Hey, maintaining one's mental health is just as important as maintaining physical health.

I'm home from work, too. 

I would agree that the ontological argument has a fundamental flaw, but I would point out that you misunderstand the argument. The argument is not that God is unimaginable at all, or that the Bible says God exists therefore He exists.

The argument follows as such in Saint Anselm, summarized by Saint Thomas Aquinas:

"For by ["God"] is signified that thing than which nothing greater can be conceived. But that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that which exists only mentally. Therefore, since as soon as the word "God" is understood it exists mentally, it also follows that it exists actually."

But this is false basically because it attempts to prove God's existence from what God is. While God's nature is as a necessarily existing thing, God's nature as it is in Himself is not self-evident to us, but can only be "gotten to" by way of created things - His effects. Hence, the argument fails.

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

You misunderstand the refutation. The refutation exists on multiple levels.

Ontological error: we cannot assign a nature to something beyond nature.

Logical blunder: the argument commits a reification fallacy (although to be fair, it can't actually get this far, because no one can concieve of a god, or something actually 'perfect' for that matter - i.e. for which nothing can be greater)

The logical error itself exists on multiple levels... is every person's conception 'for which nothing can be considered greater'  equivalent? No.

Ontological error, part 2 - using 'existence' as a predicate is a basic error, as the law of identity states 'to exist is to exist as something.

First, God has a nature. His nature is to exist. You are using different meanings of nature equivalently.

Second, it depends what you mean by "reification fallacy." I would disagree on one level, seeing that Anslem's inference is perfectly valid from the terms. If we were to use the term "God" as such a being, it would logically follow that such a being would necessarily exist. However, His essence is beyond us so that we cannot define His nature a priori. Second, agreeing with you, the most we would prove is that the being itself would be necessary, but not that such a being actually exists in reality.

Third, I see no reason why a person cannot concieve a concept of a thing which is that of which nothing greater can be thought. In fact, I have just concieved such an idea of a being possessing all manner of perfection. 

Fourth, in matter of whether everyone's conception of "greater" is, I agree with you that the matter is frought with difficulty. However, I tend to agree with St. Anselm that, absolutely considered, there would be little problem moving to his notion of such a being from any position of what is "greater."

Fifth, I think it is clear that existence does exist as a predicate, regardless of what other people might say (yes, I know Kant rejects this). What you mean in this context is that the mental existence of the term does not necessitate an actual existence. The only way to prove that would be to accept that such a being exists in the first place, which is precisely what is being proven.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

In case the argument has not been turned fully on its head yet, may I offer this up:

If we deduce "god" from "that greater than which cannot be conceived", what do we deduce from "that less than which cannot be conceived"?  A negative God?  

Add them together and what are we left with?  Nothing! 

P1. If God is perfect, then God depends on nothing.
P2. Therefore, nothing depends on God.
C1. God is nothing.

No, the less than which can be concieved would be nothingness. And there is no reason one would "add them together." Such a phrase carries no meaning.

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

If you can conceive of 0, and then conceive of -1, I bet you can conceive of something less than nothingness.  An infinite vacuum, perhaps, an ultimate black hole, which slowly draws everything into it, including god.

P1. God > 0 = imperfect
P2. God < 0 = imperfect
C1. God = 0 = perfect