This accursed thing is costing me sleep. So be it.
The ontological argument does not work, for the following several reasons.
1. Tolkein’s Imaginarium
In Tolkein’s imaginarium, are elves realer than men? Undoubtedly, yes. They are higher spiritual beings. They contain more Being.
Can we say that men are realer than elves, because men exist in Realitarium, whereas elves do not?
No. In Imaginarium, elves are realer, period.
Thus realness does not cross realms. The God of Imaginarium does not become realer by existing in Realitarium, or vice versa. Iluvatar !< Yahweh.
In another sense, everything in Imaginarium is fiction, and everything in Realitarium is real. The point is that these are two fully independent meanings of “real”, and it is dishonest to conflate them, as the ens realissimum attempts to do.
2. The largest number paradox
Contemplate the problem of the ens realissimum. In response to the above, proponents love to plead that being is a special case. The greenest, the meanest, the leanest, do not include existence necessarily – but the beingest does.
Fine. Are there other examples, or is this case truly one of a kind? If we break their novelty defense, we singe their wings of wax.
We won’t find another “beingest”. But we can abstract away the content to expose the underlying principle. That’s all math is, really.
So, instead of the beingest being, let’s posit the largest number. Then let’s posit the (largest number) + 1. Oops. “The largest conceivable number” is a broken concept; an inherent contradiction.
Likewise, the “maximum conceivable being” is a broken concept.
From cogito ergo sum, we obtain a standard measure of being – one human concsciousness, “C”. How many C’s does God have? G = infinity * C. G + 1C = ???. Broken concept.
Hmm. The above refutes the concept of infinity, not just the ens realissimum. Yet math uses infinity just fine. Thus the refutation seems suspect.
Fair enough, but the ens realissimum is not just infinity. It is the LARGEST infinity.
Can we compare infinities? Sure. A factory that makes 1 widget per hour forever makes infinity widgets. A factory that makes 1 widget per second forever makes infinity * 60 widgets.
If we couldn’t compare infinities, a line would have the same number of points as a plane; a circle as a sphere.
A square has infinity points. A square with a point beside it has infinity + 1 points.
No matter the infinity, one can always add one. Thus “largest conceivable infinity” is a broken concept. Ens realissimum is just “largest infinity” applied to being. Hence, broken.
Admittedly, my background in the mathematics of infinity is limited to AP calculus. I await correction in the comments.
I dedicate this post to my oversized proboscis, which I followed to arrive at the above, and bumped whilst navigating the dark.