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?

[mgb]

When it comes to having someone understand what it means, I will trust that a physics teacher knows and understand what Einstein actually said over a lay person.

I have presented my argument; energy is primary because energy preceeds matter and matter cannot exist without energy. As for your being a physics teacher... this is the second time you have mentioned this - I would not presume to lord my education over someone like this, and besides, education is not the same as understanding.

[Grumpy]

mgb

You are aware of what "=" means in E = mc^2 ?

It means equivalent. It does not mean the same.

As for your being a physics teacher... this is the second time you have mentioned this - I would not presume to lord my education over someone like this, and besides, education is not the same as understanding.

Nor is reading one book.

As to my being a retired physics/chemistry teacher, I mentioned it once, Goat mentioned it again.

Grumpy

[Ooberman]

Energy is primary because it can exist without being in material form. Matter cannot exist without energy to hold it in being. Matter is geometry. That is all it is. This is what science tells us.

This is ignorant.

[mgb]

Energy is primary because it can exist without being in material form. Matter cannot exist without energy to hold it in being. Matter is geometry. That is all it is. This is what science tells us.

This is ignorant.

Why?

I will post this link again-

http://nobelprize.org/educational/physi ... intro.html

The key phrases are-

"It suggests that the concept of mass is indeed, less basic than what can be believed from everyday experiences with massive bodies." [emphasis mine]

and

"Energy in all its different appearances is a key concept in physics."
[emphasis mine]

[Ooberman]

Energy is primary because it can exist without being in material form. Matter cannot exist without energy to hold it in being. Matter is geometry. That is all it is. This is what science tells us.

This is ignorant.

Why?

I will post this link again-

http://nobelprize.org/educational/physi ... intro.html

The key phrases are-

"It suggests that the concept of mass is indeed, less basic than what can be believed from everyday experiences with massive bodies." [emphasis mine]

and

"Energy in all its different appearances is a key concept in physics."
[emphasis mine]

I stand corrected. i am ignorant... less so now. Thanks.

[Goat]

When it comes to having someone understand what it means, I will trust that a physics teacher knows and understand what Einstein actually said over a lay person.

I have presented my argument; energy is primary because energy preceeds matter and matter cannot exist without energy. As for your being a physics teacher... this is the second time you have mentioned this - I would not presume to lord my education over someone like this, and besides, education is not the same as understanding.

I would say that believing of understanding is not the same as understanding. I would also think when it comes to the harder sciences, while education is not the same as understanding, for the most part, education is a prerequisite for understanding.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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?

The deductive argument is based on false premises, the first being that there is no way for humans to know if they can think of the greatest thing imaginable. This therefore outrules Anselm's comment, "God is that, than which nothing greater can be conceived." To expand on this, imagine the greatest thing you can (this is entirely subjective), then imagine what that thing can imagine.

The second false premise would be that Being is greater to not being, this could be true but would you have any way to prove that it is? What decides the level of greatness that comes with being and not being? What criteria is used to judge what is greater?

Based on the potential false premise no. 2, the conclusion is flawed.