Refutes Anselm's Ontological Argument

Assuming that one of the explorers who found the tended plot of land is a theist and one is an atheist; the theist uses Anselm’s ontological argument that, “[…] than which nothing greater can be conceived” (Palmer, 158) or in basic there is nothing greater or more perfect than God. The explorers describe the plot of land as tended to, so they set up multiple obstacles to catch and observe what being is taking care of the land. The explorer who is a presumed to be a theist states, “But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves.” He wants to believe that the being he is thinking of is a real individual
Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being whose existence is demonstrable” (Palmer, 161). Hume believes the Anselm’s ontological argument went from concrete and pure definition to a statement of fact that is all based on reality if anything happened. Hume believes the argument is invalid based on the transition from definition to statement. Along with Hume’s criticism of Anselm’s argument, Immanuel Kant also states, “If, then, I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (including that of almightiness) and say, God is, or there is a God, I do not ascribe a new predicate to the concept of God, but I only posit the subject itself […]” (Palmer, 161-162). Kant’s criticism is mainly based on how existing in present day and time is not the same as possible existing based on the fact that you believe in thought so in reality it is true. The second explorer can use Hume’s argument, supplemented by Kant’s to counter-argue the first explorers theist beliefs that the reason the land is being tended to is from almightier being, God. The second explorer, presumed atheist, can rationalize with the first one by highlighting that the he believed in thought there is a gardener who tends the plot of
Dawkins believed that there was no creator who made everything the eye can see and cannot see, but also that “[…] space and time are thus supposed to be infinite and eternal” (Leib, Slide 4: Proofs of God- Atheism). Since Dawkins believes of no creator, he strongly agrees with natural selection as way of things being the way they are and how they go there. Dawkins views religious beliefs and those tied to philosophy are clearly irrational arguments. Western religions based a majority of their beliefs through a holy book, containing holy documents and scriptures. He states that Western religious individuals use this “[…] logical fallacy “begging the question” […]” (Palmer, 184) to justify their beliefs by find the justifications in these holy documents. The atheist explorer may now counter-argue the theist explorer from a different approach, using support from Richard Dawkins. He can argue how the theist explorer is constantly looking for a reason to justify why the land is being tended in the middle of nowhere. This constant justification that is being searched for, and latter being placed on the works of God can be negated; highlighting how Dawkins believes religion is used to prove something with holy documents and scripture, justify why the person who is tending the land is invisible or an almightier being. This infallible logic of