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?

[Goat]

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?

Except, there is a fatal flaw in the logic, and that is the assumption that if you can imagine something it does exist. As such, the argument is based on false premises.

[Euphrates]

Except, there is a fatal flaw in the logic, and that is the assumption that if you can imagine something it does exist. As such, the argument is based on false premises.

Well, that's not a flaw in the logic. The logic, itself, is valid. It sounds like you want to argue that one of the premises is false... probably the second premise.

So... go ahead. Present some kind of intelligible argument to show that it's wrong.

[Goat]

Except, there is a fatal flaw in the logic, and that is the assumption that if you can imagine something it does exist. As such, the argument is based on false premises.

Well, that's not a flaw in the logic. The logic, itself, is valid. It sounds like you want to argue that one of the premises is false... probably the second premise.

So... go ahead. Present some kind of intelligible argument to show that it's wrong.

Well, it is also bad logic, since it assumes that.. if you can imagine something it exists.

That is not true.

Anselm's argument was actually refuted in his life time by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who basically say 'conceive of the most perfect island. That island is unlikely to exist in reality.

And, of course, Kant pointed out that "existence is not a predicate"

So, Anselm fails in very many ways.

[Euphrates]

Well, it is also bad logic, since it assumes that.. if you can imagine something it exists.

That is not true.

The summarized and formalized version of the argument is just a snapshot of his main points, which may make it look like things are assumed. But Anselm argued for each of his premises.

Do you deny that something in existence is greater than something that does not exist? If so, why?

Anselm's argument was actually refuted in his life time by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who basically say 'conceive of the most perfect island. That island is unlikely to exist in reality.

Gaunilo's argument doesn't show much. It attempts to mimic Anselm's argument in a way that shows it to be absurd. It has never been embraced by the philosophical community as a powerful argument for a few reasons. The most clear reason is: the lost/perfect island exists... so what? It's a real island somewhere. You can imagine cooler islands, but they don't exist, so there is no greater island. Gaunilo's island exists, it's just not what he wanted.

There are other reasons Gaunilo's argument hasn't been widely accepted. First, it doesn't undermine Anselm's logic. Second, Gaunilo defines an island, while Anselm defines a thing. In other words, Anselm's argument only applies to a thing of which nothing else is greater. The island argument only sounds absurd because the it is limited to islands.

And, of course, Kant pointed out that "existence is not a predicate"

How am I supposed to respond to this? Where is your analysis? Kant was arguing against the intelligibility of a completely "necessary" being.

[Crazy Ivan]

My take on this...

"1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater"

Just states the possibility of a limited imagination.

"1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable"

Just states that if one doesn't have a limited imagination, one is able to imagine the greatest being imaginable. None of this addresses the distinction between conceptual and physical existence.

"2. Being is greater than not being"

Doesn't distinguish between "conceptual being" and "physical being". I think this is the fundamental flaw.

"3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater."

Already presupposes the distinction was established previously, and it wasn't. Just "magically" pops into place. Now, nothing follows logically. Just reiterating goat... "it assumes that.. if you can imagine something it exists".

[bernee51]

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?

Anselm does not show that god is a being.

[Euphrates]

I'm just trying to make this clear to everyone. In order to prove an argument wrong, you need to show that the logic is invalid or not sound. To show that the logic is not sound, you have to prove that one of the premises is false.

Showing that the logic is invalid is more complicated than simply saying "well that doesn't make sense" or "that logic is bad". You'll need support to show why the logic is wrong.

Just states the possibility of a limited imagination.

This does not show that the logic is invalid or that the premise is false.

Just states that if one doesn't have a limited imagination, one is able to imagine the greatest being imaginable. None of this addresses the distinction between conceptual and physical existence.

This does not show that the logic is invalid or that the premise is false.

Doesn't distinguish between "conceptual being" and "physical being". I think this is the fundamental flaw.

What? Why would it distinguish between things it doesn't mention? The second premise is that existing is greater than not existing. In any case, your comment does not show that the logic is invalid or that the premise is false.

Already presupposes the distinction was established previously, and it wasn't. Just "magically" pops into place. Now, nothing follows logically. Just reiterating goat... "it assumes that.. if you can imagine something it exists".

The logically formalized summary of Anselm's argument doesn't contain everything he said, so maybe you're looking for something that exists within the argument, but you aren't willing to actually go look for it. Until then, again, none of what you said proves the logic to be invalid for shows that the magical premise is false.

[Crazy Ivan]

Just states the possibility of a limited imagination.

This does not show that the logic is invalid or that the premise is false.

I didn't say it did. The premises are just that.

Just states that if one doesn't have a limited imagination, one is able to imagine the greatest being imaginable. None of this addresses the distinction between conceptual and physical existence.

This does not show that the logic is invalid or that the premise is false.

Again, I didn't say it did. These remarks were to show that only imagination and conception were established as premises, not "existence" in a way that makes the argument ultimately useful.

What? Why would it distinguish between things it doesn't mention?

Because it makes "existence" ambiguous and is argued later as having followed the premises, which is not the case.

The second premise is that existing is greater than not existing.

If you don't want to leave the realm of the conceptual, that's fine. Just as long as the conclusion doesn't presume "existence" beyond concept or imagination, which is what the premises establish.

[Crazy Ivan]

Anselm makes a distinction I do not simply acknowledge as valid... that real existence implies the "object" is greater than "mere" conceptual existence. But the concept already presupposes real existence. As we conceive this ultimate being, we cannot help but to conceive it as real, or it will be lacking as a concept. As such, the being described by my concept is exactly the same as if the being were real. This assumption that it is greater, is just that... an assumption. And as far as I'm concerned this whole thing reveals a paradox... a real god, as opposed to a conceptual god, is still a concept. There's no getting around that. The idea of a "real god" is still a conception of the mind.