Kant, Anselm, and R.C. Sproul: probability or certainty?

I've been recently reading R.C. Sproul's book, Classical Apologetics, and in his book I've interacted some of the ideas I felt were repugnant (and by that I mean that they are not cogent enough to provide the Christian with sufficient knowledge of God's existence ontologically). I want to examine in particular his statements about the probability and Anslem's rendition of his ontological argument.

1. Anselm in his ontological argument writes, "the idea of a perfect being that no greater can be thought exists
   
2. Kant wrote that the mere idea of a perfect being only proves that the idea exists. Bringing the idea to life is another thing entirely different.
   

Here is where I think Kant did a great job. The trouble is within the realm of the idea. How does one come from thinking to actualization? This is the job for the Christian apologist to discover and argue. Unfortunately the classicist cannot redefine the argument.

R.C. Sproul did try to reformat the argument, as I explained above. He wrote that one cannot think of the nonexistence of a perfect being, therefore he exists. Wow! This kind of argumentation reminds me of magic shows: here is my hat, and shazam!, a rabbit comes out. Its corollary is surprising and fettered with formal problems. How does Sproul "pull the rabbit" out of the hat? One could assume he has some trap door to his argument. The fact is this—it's artificial. Here is what he writes: "We simply cannot think of his [i.e., God, or the perfect being (the argument is ambiguous to begin with)] nonexistence (p.102)." In my two figures (see below), I show the difference within each argument. I show that within the thought world, there could only be existence of the perfect being in the mind (Kant). Kant inexorably can only conclude that the mere idea exists, and that the idea cannot bring forth existence and I agree. The other figure shows Anselm's form of the argument.

Now I have a quarrel with Sproul concerning his "probability" versus his "demonstrative" proof. He assumes that possibility automatically prove the existence of a thing. Nice one! Another rabbit in the hat. This is tantamount to saying that the possibility of a unicorn exists—and it does since we have no certain knowledge of one—therefore a horned horse with wings exists? Wow! Look Ma. I'm a magician too. For all his erudite arguments, the least Sproul could have done was attempt a simple cogent argument.

Here's a poignant question that I think every Christian should ask him or herself: Are you sure you can end with the terminus that God exists definitely with probability? Think about it. In the debate between Dr. Sproul and Dr. Bahnsen, Bahnsen posed hypothetical:

Atheist: (The atheist is confronted after death with God) Are you God? You can't be since you don't exist.

God: I most certainly do.

Atheist: But you see there was reason for doubt, that your existence was not certain.

Is the Christian really arguing for these results? Is there reason to believe that God's existence is doubtful? This form of argument just shows the inept attempts for epistemology in debate for the Christian. The Christian needs to know his epistemology if he is going to give a rational defense against the atheism of this age.