Thats why I said the following in my post:
Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.
Even if you accept that as the definition, it doesn't mean you are accepting that the thing being defined actually exists. I could accept the definition of "Unicorn" as "A magical horse with a horn on its head", but that doesn't mean I am agreeing that unicorns actually exist. Even if the definition specifically calls out existence as a trait, it doesn't mean you are agreeing that such a thing actually exists when you say you understand the definition of the word. I could say I understand that the definition of "Existant Unicorn" is "A unicorn that actually exists", but that doesn't mean I agree that unicorns actually exist.
Yes its a hard word to define, buts its meaning is really quite accepted by everyone.
Really? Because I'd think thousands of years of violence and war done in the name of religious, political, and ethical opinions prove that absolutely no one agrees on what's great and what's not.
Just because its hard to define it doesnt make it invalid. Great can be subjective in certain circumanstances (e.g. whats the greatest sandwhich) but in the Onotlogical argument context, its not really.
But it is. You can't just hand wave it and say "Nah, we all agree on what makes a great god". What makes a great god? What do you say to people who disagree and think that your version of god is awful? I, personally, think most versions of god that I've heard about sound like prudish, psychotically intolerant fascists... not really great at all.
You can "imagine God". You just cant imagine A LOT of his qualities (if not all) as they are out of our world/experience. I can tell you now that I am imagining him now - for a fact. Although I cant actually know for sure a lot of things about him, i can still "imagine" him.
I'd say that you can't. If you can't imagine what god is like, and you can't say what qualities makes him great, then you can't use logic to prove anything that rests on this idea that you have an actual definition of the word "God". The word "god" is fairly meaningless as long as those using it refuse to give it any actual qualities.
Still, if you disagree with my points above, just replace the step "Imagine God" with "Imagine Something" and "God exists in the mind only" and "Something exists in the mind only" and the argument will still work.
It doesn't, for the reasons above; it's a base assertion fallacy. "Something exists in the mind" and "It would be rad if it actually existed" doesn't imply "Something actually exists." The only way you can get that is if you start off saying "Assume that Something exists..." and if you do that, the argument (any logical argument, really) is pointless... of course if you assume something exists you can prove it exists under that assumption.
Would you rather exist in the mind only, or in the mind and reality?
I, personally would like to exist. But I would say a George W Bush that existed only in the mind would be "greater" than a GWB that actually exists.
And with God specifically, a God that existed in the mind and reality would be superior and have more control than the God that just existed in the mind (which is the point of the argument).
I'd say that's fine, but like I said, this part of the argument doesn't really matter that much. The fallacy is in thinking that because you have proved that existance would need to be a part of the definition you are creating for a word, that it proves that the thing represented by the word actually does exist.