itchy93

Hey all,
I'm taking my first philosophy class in college (Intro to Philosophy) and I'm understanding everything very well. However, the question I have is based primarily on semantics (my teacher is very busy, and not very accessible).

For those not wholly familiar, Anselm claims that "God" is a "being than which nothing greater can be conceived," or the Greatest Conceivable Being. This is based on the premise of two realms of existence: existence in theory, and existence in reality.

However, Guanillo objects to this definition, stating that, while God may be the greatest being existing in theory, and a being of equal "greatness" existed both in theory AND reality, then it would be a greater being, and could be conceived as thus.

My question is this: if we accept infinite as being a valid theory, why couldn't the Anselm's definition be taken as such? That is, not to classify God as a finite being "than which no greater can be conceived", why not as the infinitely greatest being? That would counterobject to Guanillo's objection, and would satisfy Anselm's original definition.

On a side note, I am fully aware that this may be the most incomprehensible piece of dribble many of you have read; if you require elaboration, do not hesitate to ask.

Itchy93