I see this as a straw-man. I am not talking about “best” in sense of an activity operating at the highest possible capacity according to predefined rules. I am talking about a perfect act of reality. Reality is the operative word. The fact that a person is playing basketball is secondary to the fact that the person exists, and has no clear relevance to whether or not he perfectly exists. If I was arguing that a perfect basketball player necessarily exists because he plays perfectly, then your rebuttal would be a success. But in fact I was arguing for the existence of a perfect act of reality and not any particular activity.rebuttal #3: Perfect does not equal best
#4) the ideal doesn’t have to exist.
Counter-example: The perfect basketball player never misses a shot. I have defined the perfect basketball player, therefore he must exist.
Except that he doesn’t.
Conclusion: If you admit the logical possibility of a perfect being, you cannot do so without admitting at the same time that such a being actually exists because it is logically impossible for a perfect being not to exist. It is a contradiction to say that it is possible and yet at the same time not real, since if it were not real it would not be a perfect act reality; and therefore it would be meaningless to speak of the possibility in the first place. A perfect act of reality is necessarily real since it cannot fail to be perfectly real. Therefore a perfect act of reality exists.
- A perfect act of reality cannot fail to exist, because it is perfect.
- Therefore a perfect act of reality exists.
Possible rebuttal 1: Perfection is not a logically meaningful concept.
Possible answer to rebuttal 1: The onus is on the person who claims that it is not a logically meaningful concept.
Without discussing any of the exact terms you use the argument fails for the same reason St. Anselm’s arguments fails. It simply amounts to saying that we cannot conceive of such and such thing as not existing. It does not follow from this last statement that such and such a thing actually exists. Defining something in a way that it must exist, or at least so it seems to us, does not lead to the conclusion that it exists.Conclusion: If you admit the logical possibility of a perfect being, you cannot do so without admitting at the same time that such a being actually exists because it is logically impossible for a perfect being not to exist. It is a contradiction to say that it is possible and yet at the same time not real, since if it were not real it would not be a perfect act reality; and therefore it would be meaningless to speak of the possibility in the first place. A perfect act of reality is necessarily real since it cannot fail to be perfectly real. Therefore a perfect act of reality exists.
- A perfect act of reality cannot fail to exist, because it is perfect.
- Therefore a perfect act of reality exists.
Possible rebuttal 1: Perfection is not a logically meaningful concept.
Possible answer to rebuttal 1: The onus is on the person who claims that it is not a logically meaningful concept.