Anselm's Ontological Argument

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
H

Home-E

Sicc OG
#1
Apr 27, 2005
1,405
0
0
#1
1. God is the entity greater than which no entity can be conceived.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).

6. From 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 an entity can be conceived that is greater than God, the entity greater than which no thing can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore, God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).



Thoughts??
 
JLMACN

JLMACN

JLMACN
#4
Aug 26, 2002
14,639
826
0
44
WWW.YABITCHDONEME.COM
#4
Home-E said:
1. God is the entity greater than which no entity can be conceived.

2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.

3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).

4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.

5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).

6. From 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 an entity can be conceived that is greater than God, the entity greater than which no thing can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).

7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore, God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).



Thoughts??
Click to expand...

I love using one of my favorite quotes from time to time:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus - Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
Click to expand...
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#5
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#5
All arguments for the existence of god converge to the same thing - argument of ignorance. Actually Ignorance is your God, not a hypothetical omnipotent being...

these is how the real arguments go:

1. I don't know how Nature works, therefore there God did it all
2. I am too stupid to understand how Nature works, therefore there God did it all
3. We are all too stupid to understand how Nature works, therefore there God did it all
4. Because of 3, there's no point of even trying to understand how Nature works, we will never succeed
5. Because of 1,2,3 & 4, I'mma go and formulate some highly convoluted arguments for the existence of God, and because other people are slightly more stupid than me, they will not see the circularities and inconsistencies there
 
H

Home-E

Sicc OG
#8
Apr 27, 2005
1,405
0
0
#8
ThaG said:
All arguments for the existence of god converge to the same thing - argument of ignorance. Actually Ignorance is your God, not a hypothetical omnipotent being...

these is how the real arguments go:

1. I don't know how Nature works, therefore there God did it all
2. I am too stupid to understand how Nature works, therefore there God did it all
3. We are all too stupid to understand how Nature works, therefore there God did it all
4. Because of 3, there's no point of even trying to understand how Nature works, we will never succeed
5. Because of 1,2,3 & 4, I'mma go and formulate some highly convoluted arguments for the existence of God, and because other people are slightly more stupid than me, they will not see the circularities and inconsistencies there
Click to expand...

Why dont you comment on the argument instead of mocking it. Then maybe there could be an actual discussion on the topic at hand, instead of usual christian bashings.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#9
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#9
Home-E said:
Why dont you comment on the argument instead of mocking it. Then maybe there could be an actual discussion on the topic at hand, instead of usual christian bashings.
Click to expand...
First, I have to say that this is no ad hominem argument, but:

Anselm of Canterbury lived in the 11th century and no person (and no questions he asks) exist independently from the time they lived in

Having said this, it is easy to see why the argument is inconsistent

Anselm had no idea that what is said in the Bible is one big fairy tale because he had no clue the world is billions of years old and humans have existed for only 100,000 years, have developed language around 50,000 years ago and the concept of "the entity greater than which no entity can be conceived" didn't exist until much later. He had never read Dawkins and had no idea about memes

All the evidence points that the concept of God was just made up by ignorant primitive cavemen who were too ignorant to explain the world around them with reason so they had to use superstition

When you realize this, it doesn't really even make sense to try to formulate ontological arguments, because you have to first ask yourself the question "Would I be asking whether God exists if I had all the scientific knowledge humanity has accumulated in its history but I had never heard about omnipotent beings ruling the universe?"
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#14
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#14
n9newunsixx5150 said:
Not a single person in this thread who has a problem with Anselm's conclusion has actually addressed his argument.
Click to expand...
I think I did

You formulate wacky logical arguments in order to "prove" things only if you both have no other way to do it and do not really aim to do it because it is so obvious to you (due to indoctrination)

I see no data in Anselm's argument or at least something that even if theoretical is based on something rigorously proven, which automatically makes conclusions about the real world derived this way meaningless

And points 5 and 6 do not make sense at all
 
n9newunsixx5150

n9newunsixx5150

Anti-feminist
#15
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#15
ThaG said:
I think I did

You formulate wacky logical arguments in order to "prove" things only if you both have no other way to do it and do not really aim to do it because it is so obvious to you (due to indoctrination)

I see no data in Anselm's argument or at least something that even if theoretical is based on something rigorously proven, which automatically makes conclusions about the real world derived this way meaningless

And points 5 and 6 do not make sense at all
Click to expand...
Anselm's argument utilizes all a priori premises. If you are unaware, an a priori statement is one that is known true (or false) independent of experience (what you are calling "data"). For example, the statement: triangles have three sides. We know this statement to be true because it is defined in the concept of a triangle. We don't learn about the truth of this statement by making observations of the world. I could put you in a room with all sorts of shapes and if you don't know the concept of a triangle (tri nor angle), you will never determine which shape is a triangle.

Also, Anselm's argument is known as reductio ad absurdum. This means that he reduces a supposition to a contradiction and thus concludes that the opposite statement must be true by default.

He first defines God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Then he supposes the statement, "That than which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't exist in reality"

The problem Anselm points out is that if a thing exists in reality, it is greater than if it exists only in the mind. Therefore we come to a contradiction. If the thing/being than which nothing greater can be conceived does not exist in reality, then something greater than it can be conceived - namely, it existing in reality.

Therefore, since we have reduced the supposition to a contradiction, we must logically conclude that it is false and the opposite is automatically true: That than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality.

-------------------------------


By the way, I was atheist/agnostic most of my growing up. I was not raised religiously by any means. Both my parents are agnostic with atheist leanings. There is no question of me being indoctrinated.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#16
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#16
n9newunsixx5150 said:
Anselm's argument utilizes all a priori premises. If you are unaware, an a priori statement is one that is known true (or false) independent of experience (what you are calling "data"). For example, the statement: triangles have three sides. We know this statement to be true because it is defined in the concept of a triangle. We don't learn about the truth of this statement by making observations of the world. I could put you in a room with all sorts of shapes and if you don't know the concept of a triangle (tri nor angle), you will never determine which shape is a triangle.
Click to expand...
I am sure you are well aware that triangles do not exist in reality...

Also, Anselm's argument is known as reductio ad absurdum. This means that he reduces a supposition to a contradiction and thus concludes that the opposite statement must be true by default.

He first defines God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Then he supposes the statement, "That than which nothing greater can be conceived doesn't exist in reality"

The problem Anselm points out is that if a thing exists in reality, it is greater than if it exists only in the mind.
Click to expand...
What is "greatness"? How do you measure it?


Therefore we come to a contradiction. If the thing/being than which nothing greater can be conceived does not exist in reality, then something greater than it can be conceived - namely, it existing in reality.

Therefore, since we have reduced the supposition to a contradiction, we must logically conclude that it is false and the opposite is automatically true: That than which nothing greater can be conceived must exist in reality.
Click to expand...
see above

By the way, I was atheist/agnostic most of my growing up. I was not raised religiously by any means. Both my parents are agnostic with atheist leanings. There is no question of me being indoctrinated.
Click to expand...
It is not only indoctrination, it is the ignorance where all of this ultimately comes from
 
n9newunsixx5150

n9newunsixx5150

Anti-feminist
#17
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#17
You are contesting the position that a computer in reality is greater than a computer in the mind. I'll tell you what. Do not respond to this post on the internet that exists in reality. You seem to think your rebuttal would be greater if posted on the internet within your mind.
 
T

ThaG

Sicc OG
#18
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#18
See, the analogy game has been played for centuries to "prove" basically everything, and a conclusion has been reached - it doesn't always work and it is certainly not scientific to use it to "prove" things

That's why I suggest that you stop giving fake analogies and think about why "proving" the existence of God in 7 sentences is totally irrelevant to the real world
 
the.know.how

the.know.how

Sicc OG
#19
Feb 17, 2006
541
0
0
36
#19
no argument has ever proven that god exists no matter if it is an a priori argument (like rene descartes') or an a postenori argument (like george berkeley's)

and no argument ever will...any argument that tries to prove that god exists cannot have premises that are indubitable

people just need to be more skeptical about what they are told and what they read
 
n9newunsixx5150

n9newunsixx5150

Anti-feminist
#20
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
42
www.facebook.com
#20
Well, I don't know if we can say that Berkeley is even trying to prove that God exists. Berkeley simply posits "God" (a powerful mind) as a theoretical entity to explain the cause of what we perceive as physical matter.


Anselm's argument creates a lot of skeptics (myself included), although the logic is sound. So even if you aren't buying it, you have to stand in awe to the structure of the argument itself. ThaG's contention is simply that there is no observable data to prove the existence of God. Obviously, Anselm's argument does not rely on such a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom