Gary, you seem to be unaware that this argument has already been made (when Yaakov originally brought up Anselm's argument as if it was worth anything a few months ago). Yaakov is either not smart enough to understand why he is wrong or is simply a character troll.
I was genuinely unaware of that, but I really only check the Jew thread occasionally to see if Yaakov has shot up a mosque yet.
Except that Kant only THOUGHT he proved the Ontological Argument wrong. The Ontological Argument has been attacked by many people, and has withstood the challenge pretty well.
Kant's argument that existence is not a predicate is a well-established consensus at this point, so merely declaring that he's wrong isn't persuasive. Would you mind elaborating on why you think he's wrong on this point?
TMPHS is not greater than any possible thing. It may be great in some sense, but what if you don't like ham? What if you are more partial to bacon? Then it is not perfect at all.
You don't appear to understand Anselm's argument very well. For one thing, his argument isn't about preference. You don't have to prefer God or ham sandwiches. His proof doesn't depend on that. You don't have to want to eat the ham sandwich; but, if you find Anselm's logic valid and sound, then you must accept that TMPHS exists.
Second, Anselm doesn't define God as the greatest possible thing. He defines God as "a being than which none greater can be imagined." I'm defining TMPHS as "a sandwich than which none greater can be imagined." I don't see what the problem is.
And to echo PP (and myself, I guess), I'm still super curious to understand how existence is greater than non-existence and what that even means.