Just a Brief Thought on Anselm's "Blasphemy"

I was browsing the blog and re-read Chris' clever post on Aselm's blasphemy. I can't help but wonder if he read Anselm's own rebuttal to Guanilo, and just forgot to include it when responding to the relevant historical text on the matter. I am also curious as to whether Derek's modal ontological argument, or his rehashing of Descartes' ontological argument have been at all considered since their posting. At any rate I had a brief thought on the part where Chris offered his own theological perspective. He argues,

1. God exists and man by necessity of being in every way inferior to him is proved to not exist. Or...

2. Both Man and God exist. Man being in every way inferior to God proves that existence is not a perfection. Therefore the argument is void. Or...

3. Man exists and is therefore in that regard equal to God.

All three assume that existence is binary: either on or off. Either an object exists or it does not. But this is not the whole picture. Certainly there are modes of existence. For example, man's existence is contingent, meaning his creation and sustainance is dependent on things outside himself (for us theists, man's existence is considered dependent on God, but even the atheist must admit that humans are dependent on things like food and water). But God (if He exists) exists necessarily, and a se. He is the source of existence, and sustains even His own. So while the attribute of existence is communcated to man, it is so in a limited sense. This is like sight, which man has, but God has without limits (He is omniscient). This is also like power (or free will), which we reference in God with the term 'omnipotence', while man is only 'potent', and has within himself only a limited ability to determine.

So while man shares in divine attributes, they are only communicated in a limited way, hence 'image of God', not 'exact duplicate of God'. So your lines of reasoning need to be reworked in light of this modality. I have taken the liberty of doing this work for you:

1. God exists and man by necessity of being in every way inferior to [Him] is proved to [exist contingently]. Or...

2. Both Man and God exist. Man being in every way inferior to God proves that [God exists necessarily]. Therefore the argument [still works]. [And]...

3. [That 'man] exists and is therefore in that regard equal to God[' is a void argument].

Arguments (1) and (2) no longer debunk the ontological argument, and (3) no longer renders Anslem a blasphemer (phew!).