FWIS3

Yes, I'm quite skeptical too. Obviously I am not a mathematician, but I don't see how one could prove that certain assumptions involved are actually true.

e.g. A central tenent of Anselm's argument is that something can "exist merely in understanding." But from a purely materialistic standpoint this sounds impossible - the "thing in understanding" that exists as an arrangement of matter in our brains is really a completely different beast from that thing in actuality. Their only relationship is that we use the former to describe the latter; what "only exists in understanding" does not actually exist, period.

(And if such materialistic assumptions were wrong, how could one prove it? What's immaterial is unobservable pretty much by definition.)

Still, now that we're revisiting this topic with what sounds like solid mathematical proof, I'd be interested in hearing from people with a better mathematical background than myself...

"...e.g. A central tenent of Anselm's argument is that something can "exist merely in understanding."..."

Well, this kinda rules out women, if ya catch my drift......(runs off cackling madly)...

It's crap, even before it gets to math. Just equivocation, intentionally sloppy definitions, and an attempt to prove the existence of something in reality without reference to that reality.

Ignore it; it's bunk.