Can Anselm be proven wrong?

[Euphrates]

There are many arguments for the existence of God. These arguments have been mulled over by untold numbers of people through the years. Do any of these arguments show us that God exists?... or can they all be refuted by the beautiful minds at DC&R?

I want to focus on Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God (as formalized and summarized on wikipedia):

1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
2. Being is greater than not being
3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable

Anselm said, "God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived." He then argues that, based on that definition, God must exist.

That argument has frustrated many atheists and philosophers, including Bertrand Russell, who at one point said that the argument seems flawed, but the flaw is hard to find, and at another point said the argument is sound.

If Anselm is right, God exists. So... is Anselm right?

[thatoneguy]

Fine, but it's only proving the kind of existence included within the premise: the existence of consciousness. It does not prove an entity that interacts with the physical world, or even the existence of the physical world.

Oh, but there's something more than consciousness included in Descartes' premise. The "I" implies that what's proven is the existence of a thinking individual. How this conceptually proven individual "interacts" with things that may or may not exist independently of its thoughts ...is irrelevant to the fact that its own existence was provable/proven conceptually.

The difference between individual as you use it and consciousness as I use it is straight semantics. I think we are agreed, let's stop being contrary.

Unless, of course, no evidence period exists (conceptual or otherwise)?

If I propose nothing, then how am I making an argument? All I am saying is that the line defining where something becomes a priori is blurry. In that sense, I'm disagreeing with a point I made earlier.

Well, let's just say that I don't assert the impossibility, because I don't know whether it's possible or not to prove that anything at all exists independently of thought -- including my own existence.

I'm willing to say that it is as likely as God's physical existence. Would you agree with that statement?

[Icarus Fallen]

...I think we are agreed...

Really? I couldn't disagree more.

Typologically speaking, I believe Descartes' proof invokes entirely distinct notions, in that ability in action ("I think") is said to entail existence ("therefore, I am). You see, in my view, it's not the nature of the activity proper (thinking) that entails existence; it's the action that does so ("I poop, therefore I am." is every bit as valid -- just not intrinsically certain.). What the nature of Descartes' chosen activity accomplishes is the circumvention of any doubt that the act itself is occurring, since, in order to doubt it, one would have to employ it. So, in The Cogito, active ability entails the existence of the actor, while the nature of the action removes all doubt that the whole enchilada is taking place.

Your thrust has been that the typological distinctiveness of the thought and the thinker (assuming a mind/body duality is present) negates the mere possibility that the former (whatever it's composed of, if anything) can entail/prove the existence of the latter (whatever it's made of).

I believe you're wrong in that respect, because our theories involving the mind/body distinction (if there is one) have no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of Descartes' syllogism. Whatever "I" is, its existence can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt ...simply by virtue of its active ability to think.

I'm willing to say that it is as likely as God's physical existence. Would you agree with that statement?

What's as likely, T1G? -- The impossibility of Anslem's quest; or my own "physical existence"?

No matter, really, because I refuse to posit degrees of likelihood on matters where knowledge of crucial aspects is absent.

[thatoneguy]

Whatever "I" is, its existence can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt ...simply by virtue of its active ability to think.

All I had been arguing was that you had failed to define "I." Once you did, which happened in post 147, I no longer took issue with any statement you had made.

Your thrust has been that the typological distinctiveness of the thought and the thinker (assuming a mind/body duality is present) negates the mere possibility that the former (whatever it's composed of, if anything) can entail/prove the existence of the latter (whatever it's made of).

Not at all. We can prove the thinker, so long as it is defined as nothing more than "that which thinks." Would you agree or not?

[Icarus Fallen]

Not at all. We can prove the thinker, so long as it is defined as nothing more than "that which thinks." Would you agree or not?

As the punchline goes: ...depends.

Individuality is a 'crucial aspect' of the nature of the self-conscious being whose existence is only provable to himself, herself, or itself. So, "that which thinks" is only adequate if the individual whoness of the thinker is implied, and this may include some number of unproven and perhaps unprovable aspects about the individual in question.

This is where the line between 'knowing' and 'believing' can come into play on a personal level. I know I think, and so that I exist, but who am I? I am an individual with a set of experientially justified beliefs about myself. But the prospect that none of them can attain the same status of epistemic certainty as my proven existence as a thinking individual ...isn't sufficient to call for their renouncement! My existence as an individual who believes himself to be a human male born nearly 40 years ago -- one who has acquired a number of other beliefs along the way -- has been proven to me by my active ability to think.

[thatoneguy]

If there is a thought, then there is at least one thinker that is thinking it.

Is that good?

[Icarus Fallen]

If there is a thought, then there is at least one thinker that is thinking it.

I'll take it a step further. -- Knowing that I think, I also know, that at the very least, I exist.

As for the existence of any other thinking individuals, well ...as far as I'm concerned, that's the fodder of 'belief', not 'knowledge'.

BTW, I'm not a Solipsist. That is, I do believe that MANY conscious viewpoints (human and otherwise) have existed and/or continue to exist beyond the one I know exists: which is the one I believe was 'given life' nearly 40 years ago in a small town in Northern California.

It's all about epistemology, T1G.

[thatoneguy]

1. If there is a thought, then there is at least one thinker that is thinking it.
2. I am thinking a thought.
/ 3. I am a thinker.

That's it right there.

[Goat]

1. If there is a thought, then there is at least one thinker that is thinking it.
2. I am thinking a thought.
/ 3. I am a thinker.

That's it right there.

That's what you think. It is possible that you are only thinking you are thinking a thought.

[thatoneguy]

1. If there is a thought, then there is at least one thinker that is thinking it.
2. I am thinking a thought.
/ 3. I am a thinker.

That's it right there.

That's what you think. It is possible that you are only thinking you are thinking a thought.

Are you kidding?

Anyway, if you think you're thinking a thought than the act of thinking that you are thinking is a thought. Therefore not only are you thinking, but the very act of trying to understand what I just wrote will make your head hurt.

[Goat]

1. If there is a thought, then there is at least one thinker that is thinking it.
2. I am thinking a thought.
/ 3. I am a thinker.

That's it right there.

That's what you think. It is possible that you are only thinking you are thinking a thought.

Are you kidding?

You think??

Anyway, if you think you're thinking a thought than the act of thinking that you are thinking is a thought. Therefore not only are you thinking, but the very act of trying to understand what I just wrote will make your head hurt.

Don't worry, just bang your head against the wall a few times.. it will feel so much better when you stop.