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?
Can Anselm be proven wrong?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #171
Basically, it is argued that the notion of 'existence' in inherently contained in the idea of God. So, God is not just an omnipotent being, he is an omnipotent being that exists. Therefore he exists.
Sure, 'existence' is contained in the idea of God, but where is the proof that our linguistic labelling accurately matches with the real world? Language is supposed to label something to be real BECAUSE it is real. Nothing is real because language says it is.
Allow me to provide an analogous situation. I, at the moment, am contemplating about X, a device that will transform me into the world's hottest man alive, that EXISTS, and WILL appear right before my eyes as I am typing this post.
Using the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, this device MUST exist, and MUST appear right in front of my eyes BECAUSE these qualities are intrinsically contained in X, and we cannot possibly talk about X or accuse X not to exist without acknowledging these qualities or there would be a contradiction.
So why isn't X appearing? Oh, I get it. It must be because I don't actually NEED a device to transform me into the hottest man alive, and hence there is a fundamental contradiction in the existence of such a device... Hurhurhur.
But that's besides the point. Heck, I could even use the logic of the ontological argument to disprove God's existence. I am contemplating of a creature Y which is defined to give me a billion-dollar cheque, on the condition that God exists. But I am not a billionaire. That must mean that God DOESN'T exist because that is contained in the terms of Y.
Now, before you criticise me on coming up with overly absurd examples, know that the entire logic of my analogies are the same. I am thinking about an entity which is, as of yet, scientifically ungrounded. Just like God. The only difference is that many people believe in God, and not many people believe in X or Y. However, that in itself does make God any more likely to exist, nor does it make the concept of God any less potentially absurd.
So, we see that even if there is a concept of a God that necessarily exists, that does not mean that the concept accurately reflects the real world. Rather, a concept that God necessarily exists SHOULD be based on the fact that it is proven that God does exist, and cannot be trusted until proven so. So yes, if the idea of existence is contained in God, then I will say that the concept of God in itself is flawed.
Sure, 'existence' is contained in the idea of God, but where is the proof that our linguistic labelling accurately matches with the real world? Language is supposed to label something to be real BECAUSE it is real. Nothing is real because language says it is.
Allow me to provide an analogous situation. I, at the moment, am contemplating about X, a device that will transform me into the world's hottest man alive, that EXISTS, and WILL appear right before my eyes as I am typing this post.
Using the logic of Anselm's ontological argument, this device MUST exist, and MUST appear right in front of my eyes BECAUSE these qualities are intrinsically contained in X, and we cannot possibly talk about X or accuse X not to exist without acknowledging these qualities or there would be a contradiction.
So why isn't X appearing? Oh, I get it. It must be because I don't actually NEED a device to transform me into the hottest man alive, and hence there is a fundamental contradiction in the existence of such a device... Hurhurhur.
But that's besides the point. Heck, I could even use the logic of the ontological argument to disprove God's existence. I am contemplating of a creature Y which is defined to give me a billion-dollar cheque, on the condition that God exists. But I am not a billionaire. That must mean that God DOESN'T exist because that is contained in the terms of Y.
Now, before you criticise me on coming up with overly absurd examples, know that the entire logic of my analogies are the same. I am thinking about an entity which is, as of yet, scientifically ungrounded. Just like God. The only difference is that many people believe in God, and not many people believe in X or Y. However, that in itself does make God any more likely to exist, nor does it make the concept of God any less potentially absurd.
So, we see that even if there is a concept of a God that necessarily exists, that does not mean that the concept accurately reflects the real world. Rather, a concept that God necessarily exists SHOULD be based on the fact that it is proven that God does exist, and cannot be trusted until proven so. So yes, if the idea of existence is contained in God, then I will say that the concept of God in itself is flawed.
-
thatoneguy
- Scholar
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:34 am
- Location: USA
Post #172
I didn't mean formalize. I meant write in a way that actually makes a logical argument. Right now all you've done is assume it self-explanatory.Icarus Fallen wrote: Yeah, maybe I'll get a wild hair later on and formalize my own syllogism.
And you still didn't tell me what was wrong with what I wrote.
Re: Can Anselm be proven wrong?
Post #173Godel cleaned up the argument and formulated it in mathematical terms. I believe I have successfully defended Godel's Ontological Proof on this thread.Euphrates wrote: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?
-
mgb
- Guru
- Posts: 1703
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Post #174
As I see it Anselem's Argument is in three parts-
1. Perfection is
2. The perfection that is, is an existent one because a nonexistent perfection is inferior to an existent one and is therefore less. Being less it is by definition not perfect.
3. This existent perfection is God, therefore God exists.
The last 2 parts are compelling but they depend on the truth of the first one; Perfection is. If there is a perfection, it is God.
Anselem seems to take it for granted that Perfection is, but his whole argument rests on taking Perfection as a fact. So is he justified in this? To show that he is is what is required to justify his argument. Is there a Perfection?
Some people would say yes, love is perfection; love is life made perfect. I am inclined to agree with them. People seem to naturally or instinctively strive for perfection and tend to become miserable when they fail;
the artist tries to paint a masterpiece, the writer tries to perfect his/her work, parents tries to do what is best for their children...there seems to be an 'unconscious' or instinctive drive towards the ideal in so much of human life. Is this because we know deep down that perfection is? Is this what Bertrand Russell understood intuitively? This is the question that needs to be answered.
Plato, in his theory of forms says that an ideal world exists in 'heaven' or some equivalent realm and the physical things here below tend towards the ideal forms or perfections but never quite achieve them. A pure expression of this is in the world of mathematical ideas-
The euqation of a circle is x^2 + y^2 = 1 in the Cartesian coordinate system. This ideal is a perfect description of a circle in algebraic terms but where is the perfect physical circle? Physical circles - coins, saucers etc. - only tend towards the ideal. Is this tendancy towards the ideal evidence for its actual existence? This is how I formulate the question.
1. Perfection is
2. The perfection that is, is an existent one because a nonexistent perfection is inferior to an existent one and is therefore less. Being less it is by definition not perfect.
3. This existent perfection is God, therefore God exists.
The last 2 parts are compelling but they depend on the truth of the first one; Perfection is. If there is a perfection, it is God.
Anselem seems to take it for granted that Perfection is, but his whole argument rests on taking Perfection as a fact. So is he justified in this? To show that he is is what is required to justify his argument. Is there a Perfection?
Some people would say yes, love is perfection; love is life made perfect. I am inclined to agree with them. People seem to naturally or instinctively strive for perfection and tend to become miserable when they fail;
the artist tries to paint a masterpiece, the writer tries to perfect his/her work, parents tries to do what is best for their children...there seems to be an 'unconscious' or instinctive drive towards the ideal in so much of human life. Is this because we know deep down that perfection is? Is this what Bertrand Russell understood intuitively? This is the question that needs to be answered.
Plato, in his theory of forms says that an ideal world exists in 'heaven' or some equivalent realm and the physical things here below tend towards the ideal forms or perfections but never quite achieve them. A pure expression of this is in the world of mathematical ideas-
The euqation of a circle is x^2 + y^2 = 1 in the Cartesian coordinate system. This ideal is a perfect description of a circle in algebraic terms but where is the perfect physical circle? Physical circles - coins, saucers etc. - only tend towards the ideal. Is this tendancy towards the ideal evidence for its actual existence? This is how I formulate the question.
Post #175
mgb
Perfection is a completely subjective value judgement, it exists only in relation to what we think it is. The whole argument, being based on the subjective criteria of perfection, is not an objective proof of anything.
Grumpy
Perfection is a completely subjective value judgement, it exists only in relation to what we think it is. The whole argument, being based on the subjective criteria of perfection, is not an objective proof of anything.
Grumpy
-
Cathar1950
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10503
- Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
- Location: Michigan(616)
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Can Anselm be proven wrong?
Post #176Again this just shows the great divide between what a person believes and reality as you have shown no such thing or accomplished such a feat.EduChris wrote:Godel cleaned up the argument and formulated it in mathematical terms. I believe I have successfully defended Godel's Ontological Proof on this thread.Euphrates wrote: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?
But sound and valid do not make an argument true.
Of course God might not be as great as you can conceive as the imagination is capable of great feats as evidenced by your claim.
-
Icarus Fallen
- Banned
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 5:31 am
Post #177
Grumpy,
On what do you base the denial of the mere possibility that an objective standard for "perfection" can exist ...in spite of our ignorance as to the details? -- Don't tell me you're appealing to the "ignorance" itself?!Grumpy wrote:Perfection is a completely subjective value judgement, it exists only in relation to what we think it is. [...]
But the argument isn't based on the "subjective criteria" (read: the specifics of anyones' beliefs as to what constitutes "perfection"); it's rather based on the presumptions that an objective standard for perfection may exist ...and be proper to the being whose existence it's said to prove....The whole argument, being based on the subjective criteria of perfection, is not an objective proof of anything.
-
mgb
- Guru
- Posts: 1703
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Post #178
You cannot say this. Your statement itself is completely subjective. The very core of the argument is whether perfection is objective/existent. This is the question we are discussing. As for the subjectivity of perfection; by what objective criteria would this subjectivity be determined to be such?Grumpy wrote:mgb
Perfection is a completely subjective value judgement, it exists only in relation to what we think it is. The whole argument, being based on the subjective criteria of perfection, is not an objective proof of anything.
Grumpy
Post #179
Icarus Fallen
The standard by which perfection would be judged are subjective. Perfection for a fox would be easily found and catchable rabbits, for the rabbit inept and easily avoidable foxes. Both the fox's and the rabbit's standards are subjective to being the fox or being the rabbit. when judging(also a subjective process)whether something is perfect it is entirely dependent on the criteria one chooses and that is subjective to what you think, desire or need for that perfection to be. And once you do decide what perfection is, what gives you the idea that such a thing actually exists(IE what makes perfection a necessary thing). Anselm is building cloud castles, even if objective criteria for perfection were possible(I do not think they are), that says nothing about whether such perfection MUST exist).
If you spend your time gazing into your navel, lint is the only thing you are likely to find.
mgb
Grumpy
On what do you base the denial of the mere possibility that an objective standard for "perfection" can exist ...in spite of our ignorance as to the details? -- Don't tell me you're appealing to the "ignorance" itself?!
The standard by which perfection would be judged are subjective. Perfection for a fox would be easily found and catchable rabbits, for the rabbit inept and easily avoidable foxes. Both the fox's and the rabbit's standards are subjective to being the fox or being the rabbit. when judging(also a subjective process)whether something is perfect it is entirely dependent on the criteria one chooses and that is subjective to what you think, desire or need for that perfection to be. And once you do decide what perfection is, what gives you the idea that such a thing actually exists(IE what makes perfection a necessary thing). Anselm is building cloud castles, even if objective criteria for perfection were possible(I do not think they are), that says nothing about whether such perfection MUST exist).
Such a presumption is perfectly circular, it proves absolutely nothing. Who says that such a being must exist? Because your criteria says so? Mine doesn't. A perfect lack of such an entity seems much more likely(more "perfect"). One of us is wrong, therefore neither of us knows what perfection means. Of course, only one of us is claiming that perfection can even exist.But the argument isn't based on the "subjective criteria" (read: the specifics of anyones' beliefs as to what constitutes "perfection"); it's rather based on the presumptions that an objective standard for perfection may exist ...and be proper to the being whose existence it's said to prove.
If you spend your time gazing into your navel, lint is the only thing you are likely to find.
mgb
Yes, I can and do, for the reasons given above.You cannot say this.
As is any criteria by which perfection could be determined.Your statement itself is completely subjective.
And that core is rotten, it proves nothing but just how convoluted philosophers can be when their arguments are not based on reality. There are no objective criteria for what perfection would be.The very core of the argument is whether perfection is objective/existent.
The fact that what is "perfect" for the fox is far from perfect for the rabbit. What would be perfect for the theist would not be perfect for a rationalist or scientist. Magic has no place in science and despite the claims of some, knowledge only comes from rational thought backed by reality, not from rational thought alone.This is the question we are discussing. As for the subjectivity of perfection; by what objective criteria would this subjectivity be determined to be such?
Grumpy
-
mgb
- Guru
- Posts: 1703
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Post #180
In questions of perfection concerning God we are talking about both perfection for the fox and for the rabbit; perfection for all things. In other words the perfection of existence itself. I don't think existence is a property of God, rather God is existence itself; that which is. For us existence is not all it should be. It is reduced by corruption. The doctrine of the fall brings into focus the fact that life is corrupt. But life is beautiful as well. Why is the world at the meeting point between good and evil? As if the world is between heaven and hell? The theist position is that if corruption ends existence will be perfect. The theist position is that life is perfection marred by corruption.Grumpy wrote:The fact that what is "perfect" for the fox is far from perfect for the rabbit. What would be perfect for the theist would not be perfect for a rationalist or scientist. Magic has no place in science and despite the claims of some, knowledge only comes from rational thought backed by reality, not from rational thought alone.
Grumpy
You speak of thought backed up by reality. Yes, what is good in life is real and the corruption of life is real enough too. Is there any room in your world view for direct consciousness of reality or are you purely a Logical Positivist? - because there is a great difference between forming intellectual ideas about perfection and being directly aware of reality by way of our consciousness.
