Quite interesting but only a Phylosiphy major could even understand this kind of logical reasoning.
In other words this goes off the end of my goofy-meter.
As someone who studied Philosophy I can assure you that many Philosophy majors have trouble with this argument. I remember it from my 17th Century Philosophy course where it was attributed to Descartes. Of course, Descartes version is a bit simpler. The basic idea:
1. God is a perfect being/the greatest being.
2. A necessary attribute of being perfect is existing.
Therefore, God exists.
The problem, which seems almost too obvious to point out, is that we're under the assumption that an attribute of perfection is existence.
There are really a few problems with this argument:
1. It's possible that God is not a perfect being and therefore doesn't have to exist. (The argument in the link is more complicated and tries to avoid this problem, but it gets caught up on the next point and the idea that God either "necessarily exists or necessarily does not exist", there's no good reason to think those assumptions are true.)
2. It's possible that existing is not a necessary attribute of a perfect being.
3. Even if existence is a necessary attribute, it's not clear that it means actual existence as compared to conceptual existence.
There are more, but I don't want to bore you guys more than I already have. I think the main thing is that, as others have pointed out, some of the assumptions that are necessary for this argument to be logically sound are not necessarily true.
