Saint Anselm's ontological argument for God's existence

[ShadowRishi]

From Wiki:

Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence
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).


This is, unfortunately, a fallacy --the fallacy of the consequent coupled with (several) smuggled premises.

Fallacy of the Consequent: "If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu. Other illnesses may cause sore throat." (Again, from wiki; you could have any number of deseases)

Fallacy of smuggled premises: Adding premises


That is to say that:

"There is an entity X with property A, B, and C --as we define him. There must be an entity with property A, therefore entity X (and thus with the tagged properties of B and C) exists."


This, however, does not follow. The only thing the argument says is that something must exist with property A. Otherwise, if I defined two creatures with property A, and then said that they had to exist --you'd have a problem, because then you could assign both of those entities with any property you liked (even contradictory):

This argument boils down to nothingness:

"If I jump up and then got accelerated down, therefore something applied a force down on me. We'll call this force Gravitus, and it comes from God. Therefore, because Gravitus exists --and by definition comes from God-- God exists."


It's a foolish argument and proves nothing, other than something pushes you down constantly. Likewise, there is --by human understanding-- something beyond human understanding (I would argue there is an infinite number of things beyond human understanding) but outside of semantically labeling it "God", it does not prove that there's a God; it proves that there must exist a creature with property A, and then you defined God to have that property with a whole slew of other properties.


(I would support the notion that the universe is the thing that we cannot understand, and that we cannot know all inertial frames)

[Elohim]

From Wiki:

Saint Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence
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).

A weakness here is that Anselm treats existence as a predicate, categorizing it with colour, shape, size, etc.
To illustrate this:
1. (Suppose) Donkeys are blue
2. Eeyore is a donkey
3. Therefore, Eeyore is blue.
This argument clearly works. Supposing donkeys are blue, if Eeyore is a donkey, then Eeyore must be blue. But - replace the predicate 'blue' with 'exist:
1. (Suppose) Donkeys exist
2. Eeyore is a donkey
3. Therefore, Eeyore exists.
This illustrates that irrational conclusions are produced if existence is mistaken as a predicate.