Very true, Anselm refers to greater, not more powerful. And is describing God entirely in the Christian tradition. But another problem is, the conclusion does n

Very true, Anselm refers to greater, not more powerful. And is describing God entirely in the Christian tradition. But another problem is, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. 1) Imagine/conceive of the greatest possible thing. (This premise is more than true, it's a directive.) 2) Real things are greater than imaginary things. (This premise is un-controversially true.) So we can imagine an extraordinary being omnipotent and great. And we must imagine him existing because if we imagine he does not exist, we're imagining something less great. The problem is, in his own premise, _any_ existing being is greater than _any_ imagined being. So it's very true that a real God is greater than an imagined God. But, from premise 2, so is any physical real thing including the most humble being. At the risk of wandering outside of my expertise, I would think this would not bother the faithful either way since I understand faith is central to the religion. I'm guessing that Anselm's argument is a "nice to have" but if it fails it does not disturb anyone. And incidentally, I hope I have not said anything offensive.