The existence of God

[Lazy Bastard]

A decent, concise paper. We should do this more often...

[Modman]

Indeed. Especially with philosophical matters.

[Rune]

Look up the argument of why God allows evil. It is very interesting.

[Modman]

Traditional Religious Believers believe God is Omnibenevolent, or perfectly good. Is God capable of Perfect Evil?

That question poses one of many paradoxes related to omnipotence.

Can God do contradictions?

E.g. Can God sit down and draw a square circle?
Can God create a married bachelor?

Those are logically impossible things. However, if God can't do them, he can't be omnipotent.

There are logically possible things God can't do either:

Can God create a stone too heavy for himself to lift?
Can God create something he can no longer control? (Actually, examine Free Will)
Can God create something more powerful than himself?

If he can't do something, he can't be omnipotent. As humans, we can do all of those.

[Rune]

Similar, but not exactly what I was referring to.

[Modman]

I found this fairly interesting.

http://atheistdelusion.cf.huffington...stdelusion.swf

[Modman]

LB, I might need your help breaking this down. Firstly, keep in mind that this is not a direct argument between myself and the person who wrote the rebuttal; they were given only bits and pieces of my argument out of chronological order, so you can rest assured that I didn't "screw up" any where as close to the amount this rebuttal attempts to imply:

Now I'm sure you know that you cannot prove the nonexistance of God. That would be absolutely impossible being that you simply cannot search all possible universes for God and then still not find him, thus being absolutely certain that He is not real.

The universe clearly is very ordered.. There are things that we can't explain such as cell differentiation. and there are many complex things such as the structure of DNA. Why would these things just happen coincidently? I don't think that they did.

I also look at things such as our ability to think, feel and love and human beings' universal, innate concept of right and wrong. I feel that everyone seems to know right and wrong for a reason. Even if it is inconvenient to us, there is no denying that it's wrong to kill, rape, steal, etc... yet everyone from pretty much every culture will attest that those things are wrong. My belief on that is that there is a God who made us that way rather than chancing that it’s a coincidence and people just so happen to have ingrained in them a sense of right and wrong that is pretty universal and hard to ignore. If you also look at concepts such as love, it's a question of how we have an ability to love and feel emotions. One may say that this is simply a reaction to our environment because intelligent creatures such as humans couldn't really function together in a society without adapting the ability to love one another and have emotion. But, then you would be assuming that a colony of robots would eventually end up doing the same thing and becoming human for all intents and purposes.

See, there is usually a purpose behind evolution. If a mammal evolves from a creature that walks and has legs to a creature that swims, there was a purpose: it was easier for it to survive in its environment that way. Essentially, evolution doesn't happen without a reason. SO, what's the reason for the universe itself to just evolve? There isn't one. At least, if there is an existence of a God, the reason for the universe would be to glorify Him. That may not be much of a reason to an atheist, however, if there really was a God, it would make sense that He would make something simply for that purpose.

So, no. This isn't concrete proof in the existence of a God. It's just some reasons from a logical standpoint that makes it look like there may be. But honestly, do you really have proof He doesn't exist? Do you believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is not a God? Do you have anything concrete and absolute that would make me (and others) give up their faith and their reasons for believing that there is a God?


That said, there have been some serious flaws in your argument. Your applications of Occam's razor, for one, did not really fit in with the point that you were trying to make.

I mean, saying that the universe, in all of its complexities just happened by random chance is a huge assumption.

I believe it is much less presumptuous to say that the complex universe was created by an intelligent being even if He is outside of our sensory perception.

Also, you say that faith is not a good enough reason to believe in God. Well, isn't evolution a faith in and of itself because there is no way to prove it. I mean, it's technically not even a theory because they aren't even testable. Even many evolutionists themselves claim that it is not entirely infallible

*H.S. Lipson, Professor of physics, University of Manchester, UK, wrote in an article:
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it"

*Derek Agar gave this speech to the British Geological Association in 1976 about the evolution of humans:
"It must be significant that nearly all of the evolution stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked. Similarly, my own experience of more than 20 years looking for evolution among [early Brachiopads] has proven them equally elusive"

*Paul Ehrlich, professor of biology at Stanford University states:
"No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as a part of our training."


And that is the alternative if one doesn't want to believe in Creationism?


Dick wrote:

The way you wrote this, it seems that you simply WANT to believe in God, and that's enough reason for you to do so. If you want to believe in a being that is all powerful (omniscient) and perfectly good (omnibenevolent), then you can go right ahead. But you lack any evidence for that belief.

And now, I'm going to prove that God cannot be all powerful. In fact, I'm going to prove that nothing can be all powerful.

First, let us define the traditional religious believer's faith in the omnipotence of God: God can do anything; logical or illogical, contradiction or not. After all, All powerful means just that. If there's something, anything at all, that God cannot do, no matter how small of a thing it is, it is still something that God cannot do. Therefore, if anything should be comprehendable in the sense that there is no way that God could do it, it would prove that he, nor any other being, cannot be omnipotent. Following me so far?

Good. Now, let's examine logically impossible things. That is, things that are contradictions, or cannot be done.

Can God sit down and draw a square circle? No, a square and a circle are polar opposites. There is no way a square circle could exist and still hold the definitions given to a square and a circle.

Can God create a married bachelor? If a person is married, they cannot be a bachelor. If a person is a bachelor, they cannot be married.

These are things that are logically impossible. However, you may be inclined to say that God can still do them. Regardless, they cannot be done. Also, it doesn't matter how ridiculous these ideas are, if God can't do them, they are still things that God cannot do.

Now, let's move on to the logically possible things God cannot do.

Can God create something he can no longer control? If you answer yes, then something would exist which God could no longer control. And, if God can't control something, then there's something God can't do. If you answer no, well, duh, there's something God can't do.

Can God create rules for himself to follow? If you answer yes, then God it is possible for God to permanently limit his power and actions, as if God sets a rule that he must follow, it creates something that he cannot due (break the rule). If you answer no, well, I've covered this already. It's still something he can't do.

Can God create a stone too heavy for himself to lift? Well, this is interesting. Human's have created millions of things that they cannot lift. Is it possible that we can do something God cannot? How does that make him more powerful than us? But, alas, if you answer yes, well, then there would be a stone that God couldn't lift. And if he can't lift the stone... yep, you've guessed it. It's something God cannot do.

No matter how you look at it, it is impossible for an all powerful being to exist. So, even if this God of yours does exist, the God that you're thinking of right now CANNOT exist. If a God does exist, he's not all powerful. He could be defined as most powerful, but that rank isn't static; it can be surpassed or replaced.




As for your proof that God (which you define as an all-powerful being) cannot be all-powerful, I find your argument lacking in convincing logic. First, if you are going to set straw men up (which you do with the nicely somewhat ambiguous word "traditional", be aware that not everyone may agree with the position you are disproving. That being said, there are a number of responses to your argument. First, you say: "God can do anything; logical or illogical, contradiction or not. Can God sit down and draw a square circle? No." Clearly, the very basis for your argument is fundamentally flawed. You define a God who can do anything and then claim that He cannot do anything and therefore does not exist. It is my hope that you comprehend the point I am making and will not respond with something like "exactly, I am saying that such a being cannot exist", because you have not indeed proved anything. All you have done is contradicted yourself proposing a hypothetical being and violating your own proposal. If such a being did exist that could do illogical things he could clearly draw a square circle. Please next time come up with an argument that actually needs a response to defeat it.

[Modman]

Also, my friend wrote this:
"I hope you have already read the ontological proofs of God put forth by Descartes and others before posting here, so that you are not simply wasting time. Granted, there are other forms of proofs for the existence of God, but the ontological proofs are, in my opinion, the most basic.
With the assumption that you are indeed familiar with this material, I’ll continue my post. Note that this is not originally intended as an rebuttal or proof of any sort (sorry if I don’t provide you with the exhilarating debate you were seeking), but feel free to use it as that if it works. My primary goals in this are as follow: Give you a response from a(n) (semi-)intelligent Christian, express my views in a hopefully clear and understandable manner, and make sure that I keep things to the best of my ability logically consistent. Without further ado, I shall attempt to enumerate my points.
First, I find the unsupported statements you make concerning subjective topics and other’s personal experience detract from the credibility of your argument. For instance, your assertion that there is no human that could possibly be depressed by the thought of the eventual death of the world or universe is at the most absurd, and at the least an exaggeration. Not only am I skeptical of your evidence for this (it seems to come solely from your own intuition), but I have myself seen people who showed all the symptoms of depression at exactly such a thought. Not only do you seem to deny the value of others’ intuitions while putting forth assertions evidently from your own, but you re-interpret of flat out deny the evidence they give from personal experience. It is one thing to be selective in what evidence you consider and to dismiss other’s experience as something that cannot be used in this forum, due to it’s lack of objectivity, or some other characteristic, but it is a different thing to deny the truth of said experience altogether without any support. Lastly, you make such claims as that people in medieval times believed that the earth is flat. That is completely untrue. They have known it was round since classical times, and the myth that they thought it to be flat comes from a fantasy novel. Please make your arguments more supported and of a higher caliper if you want the discussion to follow conventional logic. If a logical discussion is not a requirement of yours, feel free to continue with these arguments, since I am sure that most of the myspace community will not object.
Next, I am unclear on your faith in humanity. First, you seem to oscillate between denying argument by design by talking about the KKK and the sad state of humanity, and expressing your faith in humanities ability to solve it’s own problems (which your own account of history seems to undermine). Do you have a consistent view on this, and what makes faith in humanity’s ability to solve its own problems different from the blind faith to which you are so opposed?
In answer to the question of free will put forth by Kristen, I shall attempt to explain my conceptualization of the relationship between free will and determinism. On a grand scale, viewing the history of the universe in its entirety, there exists no free will, only a universe determined by cause and effect. On a microscopic scale of history, viewing individual lives, free will is a valid concept to explain the human ability to process information and make choices based on that information, or in other words, take input and produce output. On a microscopic scale, consequences and justice make sense based on free will since one can see the correlation between an individual’s actions and the consequences. When the question of justice is brought to the macroscopic level of viewing history, it is simply present as a symmetry, or consistency in the chain of events that constitutes the life of the universe. Occasionally people then ask "well why does someone get punished for what wasn’t their fault?", but this shows a misunderstanding of the concept of determinism, since they are attempting to take a concept only present on the microscopic level, namely fault, and apply it to the macroscopic view of history. Anyone sufficiently versed in quantum mechanics and relativity theory certainly understands the difference between understanding microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. If one clearly understands my point, to disagree is to deny cause and effect, or to deny the human ability to process information and make choices altogether, both of which are not easy claims to support. Hopefully this view of determinism and free will is helpful.
The question Dick put forth is explainable through this view, but also brings up the question of God’s perfect will and His de facto will. This is a theological view stemming from a belief that God is omnipotent, and has a multidimensional or multifaceted character. While lengthy in its full form, the theory essentially states that there is a separation between God’s desires as He reveals them to humans, and what He allows to happen. It is a reconciliation of His omni benevolence with His omnipotence, and the existence of evil. Other solutions to this are recognizing evil as the absence of God, or demonstrating how God’s allowance for evil to exist results in a better end. This can be shown in a number of ways, and it is normally up to individual preference which one accepts. For an informal analogy, I find that the image of an author writing a book works well. One does not criticize the author for including corrupt characters in the story, or praise them for their lack of any character with any flaws, but on how well they write the story, and whether the events in the book follow the character’s personalities consistently. In the same way, God when writing creation, is not unjust for allowing imperfection to exist, but is praised on how well He deals with this imperfect, how just and merciful He is, or whatever other qualities you find helpful to substitute into the analogy.
While I am between topics, let me apologize for the remarks of a number of other "Christians". While I was not involved in that in any way, I feel I should give you some consolation for actually reading through their posts and surviving the brain damage that must have followed. I personally thought it was relatively clear from your posts that you were not seeking to be proselytized or to engage in who-can-type-louder contests. Sadly, I am not surprised by the responses this topic elicited, but I guess, you shouldn’t be either, since you did begin the topic on a High School Myspace page, instead of a university philosophy club.
As for the question of where God came from, I am pleased to see that you did not set that up as a proof against God, since it usually only serves the purpose of demonstrating a lack of understanding of the concept of God by those who use it in this manner. However, it is not as simple as it may seem to assert that the universe has always existed, especially if you accept the big bang theory to be true, since supposedly, the space time continuum as we know it came from the big bang, and so the initial point mass cannot have existed "in" a universe as we understand it. Furthermore, this presumes the universe to have certain "supernatural" characteristics that we do not usually associate with it, so that it would not require any cause. All this is to say that it is actually far simpler to say that God created it and is by definition ever-existent, than to explain the theory of the eternal universe. It is just the scientific quality that the latter theory has that makes it more appealing, not the simplicity with which it may be explained.
As long as I am responding to your posts at random, I shall address the issue of the imperceptibility of God. First, in responding to the barber shop example you claimed no evidence that God is the cause of the removal of pain and suffering. This seems to be your stance throughout the topic as you consistently tell people that their experiences were a result of their own actions without any higher being. I would like to point out that there is as much evidence for God being the agent of healing as there is for the barber being the haircutting agent, with the difference being objectivity in sight. What I mean is, to the person who believes God has healed them, the only difference between the reality of God and the barber is that they see the barber and they can show other the barber visibly.
Second, you give the gardener analogy early on. I am making the assumption (which seems obvious to me) that you are not using that example to say something like "If we can’t see or smell or touch the gardener, so he must not exist, since no gardener is that skillful to avoid detection by any of those methods", but that you are instead putting forth an empiricist view of reality to question the nature of reality outside sensual perception. Firstly, the analogy is not logically consistent with the question of whether God is the cause of a physical phenomenon. To make this analogy is to say God is to man (gardener) as a physical phenomenon is to a physical phenomenon (garden). Since the second pair are in the same category, and the first to are not, the analogy does not apply. Ignoring that fact however, questioning the existence of extrasensory reality is not only philosophically very controversial and difficult to support, but it is also inconsistent with the objections that you have presented against the experiential evidence others provide. If there is a reality outside of the senses, the difference between an existent imperceptible gardener and a non-existent gardener is nonsensical. If there is not reality outside of perception, then the testimonies that people give of God prove His existence, since to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him and thus He exists. If you further qualify reality to include only those things collectively experienced, it is no longer a practical definition, since it is obvious that there are many portions of our lives that others cannot experience (our thoughts for example), but which are still real in a sense and even define reality according to Descartes. Furthermore, a single individual’s denial of anything calls into question its existence. If you do not require unanimity in the collective experience, God certainly qualifies, as there are plenty of people who have experienced God, and the only way to refute their testimony is to assume an extrasensory reality. Hence, the gardener example does not discredit God’s existence, and the idea of God’s existence is just as plausible (if not more) with a perceptual definition of reality. Even were it possible to construct a notion of reality that excluded the possibility of God, God can simply be said to be outside of that reality by virtue of being its creator, and the notion of reality is still simply a notion with which no one is required to agree.
As short note, you beg the question when stating "God does not exist. People believe He does. Therefore, they are in denial" or "God does not exist. Therefore belief in Him is only due to conformity to early conditioning (upbringing) or a need for solace. Therefore God does not exist." If your reply is that you are not using this argument, than choose your words more carefully and refrain from statements such as "that’s called denial" which presume this form of reasoning.
Finally, let me make it clear again, that I enjoy debate, and think that intellectual investigation is very important. While I object to some of the statements tones contain ed in this topic, I am fundamentally for the concept of exchanging ideas, over agreement or disagreement alike. I also, am not as presumptuous to make any conscious judgments about the individuals who are making the posts, and attempt rather to deal with the content and their persona in posting (the "you" to which I occasionally refer). While controversy is occasionally catalytic and necessary, my goal is not to create that, but to provide and articulate account of my ideas, which I hope will be intellectually satisfying to those reading it, whether they concur or not. With these closing words, thank you for contributing your ideas and reading mine."

[MIR]

Dear god! TCOJCOLDS propaganda!

[Lazy Bastard]

Sorry; I hadn't noticed this. The last one is a decent reply, but is not impervious to logic. If you like, and I'm not far too late, you can post what's below verbatim, in response to your friend:

I'm lazy, but I'll touch on a few things. I apologize if this becomes verbose, and hope I won't be taken as...pedantic for being complex in such a matter, but such a matter is complex:

In the same way, God when writing creation, is not unjust for allowing imperfection to exist, but is praised on how well He deals with this imperfect, how just and merciful He is, or whatever other qualities you find helpful to substitute into the analogy.

You're either ambiguating "good" in the sense of quality with "good" in the sense of morality, or muddying the waters by using an analogy that sounds wise and concise, but doesn't apply. For a book to be entertaining to those outside of its "existence", there must be antagonists. If God is writing in all of these maladies of life, whether or not he is "good" as an author, he isn't good in the sense of morality, if you'll accept morality as being a desire and will to help, or at least not harm (my apologies, but stating that these things will help in the end by some mysterious, inexplicable plan of God's will not suffice as a response to this, as to say that is simply to say, as so many Christians find easy to in a roundabout way, "To explain that inconsistency in logic...God is magic."). Back to it: Perhaps God's book would be very entertaining for those outside of it, reading, but to the protagonists and innocent "red-shirt" victims of circumstance within, a bad event is a bad event. If you thought Hellraiser was a great movie, would you then think it acceptable for demons to rend men apart with savage instruments for the sole purpose of enjoying their suffering, regardless of whether they "deserved" it or not? I should hope the answer would be "No". If Clive Barker wrote these demons to slaughter forty people, and let the rest of the world live, and whatever he wrote actually happened in real life, would he be thought "merciful"? I have never heard or read a convincing argument to the effect that God is all-good, and He is the cause of everything that occurs and is, and bad things happen, therefore, bad things must be good, or acceptable, or be the means to a good end. The only weak resistance you can give is to say, (quoting Vanilla Sky) "Without the sour, the sweet...just ain't sweet." While pleasure in the absence of discomfort or pain might not be pleasure as we think of it, there's no reason for things like the genocide in Rwanda to occur, ever. God's allowance of "evil", or bad events in any case, is not consistent with His being all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful. If He were all-powerful, He could find a way for humans to live in relative happiness, without dulling the sense of joy we get from the absence of discomfort. In any case, the extreme lows of horrible torture, rape, brutal child abuse, and so forth should never be allowed. If God allows these to occur so that the victim will later be strong enough to serve some purpose for Him (disregarding those that are killed in the process of their misfortune), why would he simply not carry out the task Himself, thus sparing needless suffering? If He's omnipotent, He can do anything. I'm fairly certain there is no logical way for a Christian to debate this point, so I forgive you in advance if you have no rebuttal, but implore you to make the attempt.

All this is to say that it is actually far simpler to say that God created it and is by definition ever-existent, than to explain the theory of the eternal universe.

You must see the irony in such a statement. Can I be born in a log cabin I built with my own hands? The hilarity of the human mind trying to conceive of infinity or a beginning to existence aside, it's no simpler to imagine that God created the universe than that it was created by some process, other than to simply "accept" that God created it, and stop thinking, which is inexorably easier than continued thinking. If I propose that I am 100% helium, it is easier to believe me and drop the subject than to refute it and think of why it's irrational, yes. "Points" like this only serve to exascerbate the Christian theme, "It's easier to stop thinking and blindly believe than to use logic and the power of thought to deduce".

If there is not reality outside of perception, then the testimonies that people give of God prove His existence, since to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him and thus He exists.

You're ignoring insanity, dishonesty, and, more importantly, confusion, using testimony as proof, and clouding the matter by including the argument of a property of God. You're correct in stating that, if there were no reality outside of human perception "[...]to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him", but your next statement is the convoluted end of a path dictating, "If someone claims it exists, it must exist". You could have said, "[...]to say they experienced Him is akin to saying they perceived him, and thus saying He exists.", but that wouldn't have the same effect, would it?

If you do not require unanimity in the collective experience, God certainly qualifies, as there are plenty of people who have experienced God, and the only way to refute their testimony is to assume an extrasensory reality.

...or to assume they're insane, dishonest, or confused. Perhaps you consider some of those to be an "extrasensory reality", but I would attest (and I hope you would agree) that those three are not reality at all. To say, "He is real because I can...just feel it." does not apply in a debate. By the same argument, one might say every other religion is correct, including the ones that contradict each other. "[...]as there are plenty of people who have experienced God" - Such a statement should not be used as a fact as you have just used it. Until you have proven the existence of God in this debate, you cannot use the existence of God as a piece of the puzzle to solve the mystery of whether or not He exists. Such a method is absurd, though I presume you did not do so intentionally, and are instead so steeped in your beliefs that you were simply stating a fact in your eyes, oblivious to the blunder entirely.

I'm sure there are other things I could piece apart, but I'm a little lazy, and should go perform some calisthenics and make breakfast. Despite the perceived rudeness of any of the things I've said herein, I agree fully with the usefulness of logical debate, and hold anyone willing to intelligently contest either side of such a disagreement in the highest respect.

[Modman]

Here's the excerpt from "The God Delusion", written by Richard Dawkins, that obliterates Intelligent Design:

The argument from improbability is the big one. In the traditional
guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular
argument offered in favor of the existence of God and it is seen,
by an amazingly large number of theists, as completely and utterly
convincing. It is indeed a very strong and, I suspect, unanswerable
argument - but in precisely the opposite direction from the theist's
intention. The argument from improbability, properly deployed,
comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the
statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is
the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.

The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing
747 and the scrapyard. I am not sure whether Hoyle ever wrote it
down himself, but it was attributed to him by his close colleague
Chandra Wickramasinghe and is presumably authentic.

Hoyle said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater
than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard,
would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

Others have borrowed the metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex
living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against
assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle, or ostrich by randomly
shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory.

This, in a nutshell, is the creationist's favorite argument - an argument that could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing
about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a
theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the
opposite.

The creationist misappropriation of the argument from improbability
always takes the same general form, and it doesn't make
any difference if the creationist chooses to masquerade in the
politically expedient fancy dress of 'intelligent design' (ID).* Some
observed phenomenon - often a living creature or one of its more
complex organs, but it could be anything from a molecule up to the
universe itself - is correctly extolled as statistically improbable.
Sometimes the language of information theory is used: the
Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the information in living matter, in the technical sense of information content as a
measure of improbability or 'surprise value'. Or the argument may
invoke the economist's hackneyed motto: there's no such thing as a
free lunch - and Darwinism is accused of trying to get something
for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this chapter, Darwinian
natural selection is the only known solution to the otherwise unanswerable
riddle of where the information comes from. It turns
out to be the God Hypothesis that tries to get something for
nothing. God tries to have his free lunch and be it too. However
statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking
a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.

God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

The argument from improbability states that complex things
could not have come about by chance. But many people define
'come about by chance' as a synonym for 'come about in the
absence of deliberate design'. Not surprisingly, therefore, they think
improbability is evidence of design. Darwinian natural selection
shows how wrong this is with respect to biological improbability.
And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the
inanimate world - cosmology, for example - it raises our
consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology.
A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the
easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and
teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing
complexity. Before Darwin, philosophers such as Hume understood
that the improbability of life did not mean it had to be designed,
but they couldn't imagine the alternative. After Darwin, we all
should feel, deep in our bones, suspicious of the very idea of design.
The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before, and
Darwin should have immunized us by raising our consciousness.
Would that he had succeeded with all of us.

[Lazy Bastard]

Decent. I haven't gotten that far in The God Delusion yet, but I was amused by this recently:

It is possible to conceive, Anselm said, of a being than which
nothing greater can be conceived. Even an atheist can conceive of
such a superlative being, though he would deny its existence in the
real world. But, goes the argument, a being that doesn't exist in
the real world is, by that very fact, less than perfect. Therefore we
have a contradiction and, hey presto, God exists!

[and a good reply...]

1 The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement
imaginable.

2 The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic
quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.

3 The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more
impressive the achievement.

4 The most formidable handicap for a creator would be nonexistence.

5 Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an
existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one
who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than
which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable
and incredible creator would be a God which did not
exist.

Ergo:

7 God does not exist.

Needless to say, Gasking didn't really prove that God does not
exist. By the same token, Anselm didn't prove that he does. The
only difference is, Gasking was being funny on purpose.

[Modman]

Yeah, I LoLz'd at that too.