Plato outlined what he called the Forms.  He believed that the essence of something was not the shape of it or the matter of which it was constructed or its color or any other physical property.  He believed that we are able to recognize an object because we know its essence through its Form.  The Form to him was some ethereal thing that no one could see or touch but that existed nonetheless.  So, in Plato’s mind, their was the Form which didn’t exist in time or space and there is the manifest of the Form, which is what we see.  The Form of a triangle is an  idea not created by humans, but the triangle that we see is. In Platonic philosophy, the triangle Form is greater than the physical representation of it because it is more perfect in form.  A Form has no flaw, so therefore, it cannot be less than something that exists in the physical world. 

Anselm outlined what he called the Ontological Proof of God’s existence.  In this argument, he postulated that something that exists only in our minds is not as great as something that exists in the real world.  He further noted that everyone agrees that God, whether they believe in his existence or not, is the greatest power there is.  Therefore, he concluded that because we can imagine God, the greatest of all beings, he must exist because to not exist would mean that he is not the greatest power in existence. The crux of it is that a real God is more perfect than an imaginary God..

Anselm says something that exists is greater than something that is but an idea.  Plato says that something that exists is less great than something that is an idea.  Here is the problem.  Both the ideas cannot be true.  They clearly contradict each other.

If Anselm is right, and the idea of God is not as great as the existence of god, then so too must we conclude that the triangle that we draw on a piece of paper is greater than the concept of a perfect triangle.  This is inconsistent with Platonic philosophy.  Plato would hold fast to the idea that the concept of the triangle is greater than the actual triangle we may draw.

However, if Plato is right and the idea or concept of an object or thing is greater than the physical representation of the object, then we must also conclude that God the idea is greater than God who exists, that is, God is greater if he does not actually exist.  This not only contradict’s Anselm’s ontological argument, it is counterintuitive to us as humans.  It would not make sense to have a God that didn’t exist.

Or would it? Human nature takes delight in picking at flaws and imperfections, if only to prove desired perfection of an object. A God who exists only in the imagination can be whatever is fancied by the individual. Flaws can be found, or not, but can never be proven either way. To humans, an object is real only if it can be sensed by human capacity. Thus, something which cannot be heard, seen, felt, smelt or tasted has no real world properties, and doesn’t exist in time or space. All things are either real or abstract. If it cannot be sensed, it is abstract; an idea only. If God were real, then human senses would have to be able to notice his presence, and then he would be open to critical examination and a search for flaws. However, a God that cannot be sensed by humans is an abstract idea only, and cannot be subjected to critique based on real qualities. Thus, only an imaginary God could remain perfect, for flaws cannot be sensed. What a strategy for promoting a perfect being: Claiming he exists in time and space, but hiding him so that nobody may examine just how perfect he is!