I love it. I think Anselm's ontological argument is more a proof of confirmation bias than anything else. So as a corollary to his argument, the more beneficial

I love it. I think Anselm's ontological argument is more a proof of confirmation bias than anything else. So as a corollary to his argument, the more beneficial something may be to us, the more biased we are to confirm its existence. Therefore, a maximally benevolent being incites maximal confirmation bias on our part, and any logical argument for its existence is therefore problematic.