Philosophic discussion #37- Anselm's argument for God

[jonesthecurl]

Maybe, if god is the greatest thing that can be imagined, then god and the universe are exactly the same thing - since the universe also includes everything real by definition.
Suck on that Anselm.

[_sabotage_]

jones, i just said that two posts up.

[Haggis_McMutton]

But isn't that missing the point, though? If jonesthecurl's God-maker exists, then that person is God, and if we can imagine a God-maker^∞+1, that's God. It's not so much a refutation of 1 as it is a limitation of our imaginative ability.

By the same token, Haggis's G∞ would be God.

The point is there is no upper limit. No matter how good you are at ping-pong I can imagine a being that is even better. Therefore there is no "greatest" being.

That's assuming God is defined in such a way that God can be created... maybe if God created {everything} (maybe excluding God), then either you can't define the maker of God, or the maker made God, but since this maker is included in {everything}, God made the maker ==> God >= the maker?
Idk... I'm too tired to think properly, but basically how do you know that God can be made?

Jones' example used the god maker. Mine used ping-pong so I don't need to get caught in that tarpit.

No matter how good God is at ping-pong I can imagine a being that is even better, therefore there is no "best possible ping-pong player" and therefore there is no "greatest possible being".

[Jippd]

I had to write a paper on this. I found a problem with point 3.

3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)

I don't think it is true that something that exists in reality is always greater than something that exists in the understanding. War/rape/murder/child abuse etc. etc. to me would be better existing only in the understanding than to exist in reality.

Since this proves that something that exists in reality is not ALWAYS better than something that exists in the understanding I found a flaw with his reasoning.

[chang50]

I had to write a paper on this. I found a problem with point 3.

3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)

I don't think it is true that something that exists in reality is always greater than something that exists in the understanding. War/rape/murder/child abuse etc. etc. to me would be better existing only in the understanding than to exist in reality.

Since this proves that something that exists in reality is not ALWAYS better than something that exists in the understanding I found a flaw with his reasoning.

Does greater mean better in this context,I'm not sure it does?

[PLAYER57832]

Hey all, this is a fun lil thing I got from my formal logic course.

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/ont ... ument.html

Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.

1. God is something than which nothing greater can be conceived. (definition of "God")
2. If someone understands the concept of God (i.e. the concept of something than which nothing greater can be conceived) then God "exists in the understanding" of that person. (definition of "exists in the understanding")
3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)
4. The fool understands the concept of God (= the concept of something than which nothing greater can be conceived).
5. Therefore (from 2 and 4) God exists in the understanding of the fool.
6. Suppose for the sake of argument that God exists only in the understanding of the fool (i.e. not in reality as well). (This assumption will form the basis of a reductio ad absurdum.)
7. Then we could conceive of something exactly like what exists in the fool's understanding except that it also exists in reality.
8. The entity that we conceived in 7 would be greater than the entity that exists only in the fool's understanding (by 3)
9. But in that case what the fool conceived was not after all something than which nothing greater can be conceived (after all, we've just conceived of something greater).
10. So we have a contradiction! (Between 5 and 9)
11. So the assumption we made in 6 must be mistaken (since it led to a contradiction).
12. So God exists in reality. (6 was the assumption that God does not exist in reality; since 6 is mistaken, God does exist in reality.)

It turns out that it is formally valid, so the controversy lies in the soundness of the argument. Which of the premises would you argue against in order to prove the argument unsound? Otherwise I view it to be a fairly convincing argument in a Cartesian sort of way.

#4 jumps immediately to mind,uickly reading over the list.
Who says a fool can understand God? Or, to put it another way, not every fool can. That would seem to be an easy attack point, but if I have time later, I may think about this more.

[Jippd]

I had to write a paper on this. I found a problem with point 3.

3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)

I don't think it is true that something that exists in reality is always greater than something that exists in the understanding. War/rape/murder/child abuse etc. etc. to me would be better existing only in the understanding than to exist in reality.

Since this proves that something that exists in reality is not ALWAYS better than something that exists in the understanding I found a flaw with his reasoning.

Does greater mean better in this context,I'm not sure it does?

What does greater mean to you in this context?

[chang50]

I had to write a paper on this. I found a problem with point 3.

3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)

I don't think it is true that something that exists in reality is always greater than something that exists in the understanding. War/rape/murder/child abuse etc. etc. to me would be better existing only in the understanding than to exist in reality.

Since this proves that something that exists in reality is not ALWAYS better than something that exists in the understanding I found a flaw with his reasoning.

Does greater mean better in this context,I'm not sure it does?

What does greater mean to you in this context?

It could just as easily mean bigger as in 'Greater London'.

[usernamer]

I had to write a paper on this. I found a problem with point 3.

3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)

I don't think it is true that something that exists in reality is always greater than something that exists in the understanding. War/rape/murder/child abuse etc. etc. to me would be better existing only in the understanding than to exist in reality.

Since this proves that something that exists in reality is not ALWAYS better than something that exists in the understanding I found a flaw with his reasoning.

Does greater mean better in this context,I'm not sure it does?

What does greater mean to you in this context?

It could just as easily mean bigger as in 'Greater London'.

Got to say I agree with Chang here - I'm not convinced that greater means more moral / better / beneficial from some individuals or societies or whoever's viewpoints.

Not quite sure how to say what I'm thinking on this one, but, if murder exists in reality as well as being an idea, then it's more powerful since people would start taking measures to ensure they're not murdered...

Or if you have war as a concept (e.g. you play RISK or study what implications war would have), then it has nowhere near as much weight to it as war in reality and is therefore not as great as merely a concept.



I think those are roughly the lines I'm seeing it on, but even if by great you mean 'better', you could just change the initial definition to see whether you can prove the existence of a being where great is given a differnent meaning

[Haggis_McMutton]

Got to say I agree with Chang here - I'm not convinced that greater means more moral / better / beneficial from some individuals or societies or whoever's viewpoints.

Not quite sure how to say what I'm thinking on this one, but, if murder exists in reality as well as being an idea, then it's more powerful since people would start taking measures to ensure they're not murdered...

Or if you have war as a concept (e.g. you play RISK or study what implications war would have), then it has nowhere near as much weight to it as war in reality and is therefore not as great as merely a concept.



I think those are roughly the lines I'm seeing it on, but even if by great you mean 'better', you could just change the initial definition to see whether you can prove the existence of a being where great is given a differnent meaning

This is another classic problem in discussing god. "god" is so ill-defined that the goal posts can be easily shifted in the middle of the discussion.

This is why, if you really get down to it, the position that makes most sense is that of ignosticism. (for the record, I do think it's acceptable in casual conversation to call yourself an agnostic atheist or just an atheist when calling yourself an ignostic or theological noncognitivist would make you look like a massive tool)

Anyway, the vagueness of the word "great" is another weakness of the argument. If debating this argument the proponent should be pressed for a clearer definition of "great".

[BigBallinStalin]

Got to say I agree with Chang here - I'm not convinced that greater means more moral / better / beneficial from some individuals or societies or whoever's viewpoints.

Not quite sure how to say what I'm thinking on this one, but, if murder exists in reality as well as being an idea, then it's more powerful since people would start taking measures to ensure they're not murdered...

Or if you have war as a concept (e.g. you play RISK or study what implications war would have), then it has nowhere near as much weight to it as war in reality and is therefore not as great as merely a concept.



I think those are roughly the lines I'm seeing it on, but even if by great you mean 'better', you could just change the initial definition to see whether you can prove the existence of a being where great is given a differnent meaning

This is another classic problem in discussing god. "god" is so ill-defined that the goal posts can be easily shifted in the middle of the discussion.

This is why, if you really get down to it, the position that makes most sense is that of ignosticism. (for the record, I do think it's acceptable in casual conversation to call yourself an agnostic atheist or just an atheist when calling yourself an ignostic or theological noncognitivist would make you look like a massive tool)

Wait, could you give us an example?

[jonesthecurl]

Got to say I agree with Chang here - I'm not convinced that greater means more moral / better / beneficial from some individuals or societies or whoever's viewpoints.

Not quite sure how to say what I'm thinking on this one, but, if murder exists in reality as well as being an idea, then it's more powerful since people would start taking measures to ensure they're not murdered...

Or if you have war as a concept (e.g. you play RISK or study what implications war would have), then it has nowhere near as much weight to it as war in reality and is therefore not as great as merely a concept.



I think those are roughly the lines I'm seeing it on, but even if by great you mean 'better', you could just change the initial definition to see whether you can prove the existence of a being where great is given a differnent meaning

This is another classic problem in discussing god. "god" is so ill-defined that the goal posts can be easily shifted in the middle of the discussion.

This is why, if you really get down to it, the position that makes most sense is that of ignosticism. (for the record, I do think it's acceptable in casual conversation to call yourself an agnostic atheist or just an atheist when calling yourself an ignostic or theological noncognitivist would make you look like a massive tool)

Anyway, the vagueness of the word "great" is another weakness of the argument. If debating this argument the proponent should be pressed for a clearer definition of "great".

That's why semantic analysis renders Anselm actually quite meaningless. If you want to use a bunch of words to reach a logical conclusion, you have to be clear what those words mean in the first place.

[daddy1gringo]

I do believe in God, and I still think Anselm's argument here is a lot of sophomoric drivel, for pretty much all of the reasons people have so far stated, and probably a few others if I felt it were worth figuring them out.

[crispybits]

1. God is something than which nothing greater can be conceived. (definition of "God")
2. If someone understands the concept of God (i.e. the concept of something than which nothing greater can be conceived) then God "exists in the understanding" of that person. (definition of "exists in the understanding")
3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)
4. The fool understands the concept of God (= the concept of something than which nothing greater can be conceived).
5. Therefore (from 2 and 4) God exists in the understanding of the fool.
6. Suppose for the sake of argument that God exists only in the understanding of the fool (i.e. not in reality as well). (This assumption will form the basis of a reductio ad absurdum.)
7. Then we could conceive of something exactly like what exists in the fool's understanding except that it also exists in reality.
8. The entity that we conceived in 7 would be greater than the entity that exists only in the fool's understanding (by 3)
9. But in that case what the fool conceived was not after all something than which nothing greater can be conceived (after all, we've just conceived of something greater).
10. So we have a contradiction! (Between 5 and 9)
11. So the assumption we made in 6 must be mistaken (since it led to a contradiction).
12. So God exists in reality. (6 was the assumption that God does not exist in reality; since 6 is mistaken, God does exist in reality.)

For my part the fault is in the very first item, in that it assumes that our imagination or visualisation abilities are (nearly?) infinite.

For example, there's very little difference, biologically, between us and chimps. We share 99% or so of our DNA, we are structured the same way with skeltons and internal organs which by and large do all the same things, and brains which chemically work pretty much the same ways. Yet some people will train chimps up to ride a bicycle or do very basic maths or whatever, and we all marvel at how this animal can do things that we expect from a toddler. Now imagine that there's a creature that is to us what we are to chimps. That some of them could wheel out Stephen Hawking and say "look, he can do astronomical mathematics in his head" and that would be for them the equivalent of a toddler. We could have no more comprehension of their level of thinking or philosophy or intellect as could a chimp understand chaos theory or quantum physics or any of the ideas at the forefront of our understanding.

Now, instead of just making the 1% tiny difference, we are being asked to conceive of something so far beyond our limits of understanding that it would be less likely for us to do that than for an e-coli bacteria to have total understanding of the physics of the most advanced scientists to ever exist in any universe ever.

This is why God-myths are always populated with small Gods. These small Gods are completely unimaginably powerful to us, but in the grand context, look at Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or Athena or Ra or Osiris or any God throughout human history, and you will generally find something that, if you accept the above analogy about the limits to our comprehension, is so tiny that it gets dwarfed by the potential expanse of actual possibility and reality.

[chang50]

1. God is something than which nothing greater can be conceived. (definition of "God")
2. If someone understands the concept of God (i.e. the concept of something than which nothing greater can be conceived) then God "exists in the understanding" of that person. (definition of "exists in the understanding")
3. It is greater to exist in reality than in the understanding alone. (More precisely: if x exists in the understanding but not in reality, and y is exactly like x except that y also exists in reality, then y is greater than x.)
4. The fool understands the concept of God (= the concept of something than which nothing greater can be conceived).
5. Therefore (from 2 and 4) God exists in the understanding of the fool.
6. Suppose for the sake of argument that God exists only in the understanding of the fool (i.e. not in reality as well). (This assumption will form the basis of a reductio ad absurdum.)
7. Then we could conceive of something exactly like what exists in the fool's understanding except that it also exists in reality.
8. The entity that we conceived in 7 would be greater than the entity that exists only in the fool's understanding (by 3)
9. But in that case what the fool conceived was not after all something than which nothing greater can be conceived (after all, we've just conceived of something greater).
10. So we have a contradiction! (Between 5 and 9)
11. So the assumption we made in 6 must be mistaken (since it led to a contradiction).
12. So God exists in reality. (6 was the assumption that God does not exist in reality; since 6 is mistaken, God does exist in reality.)

For my part the fault is in the very first item, in that it assumes that our imagination or visualisation abilities are (nearly?) infinite.

For example, there's very little difference, biologically, between us and chimps. We share 99% or so of our DNA, we are structured the same way with skeltons and internal organs which by and large do all the same things, and brains which chemically work pretty much the same ways. Yet some people will train chimps up to ride a bicycle or do very basic maths or whatever, and we all marvel at how this animal can do things that we expect from a toddler. Now imagine that there's a creature that is to us what we are to chimps. That some of them could wheel out Stephen Hawking and say "look, he can do astronomical mathematics in his head" and that would be for them the equivalent of a toddler. We could have no more comprehension of their level of thinking or philosophy or intellect as could a chimp understand chaos theory or quantum physics or any of the ideas at the forefront of our understanding.

Now, instead of just making the 1% tiny difference, we are being asked to conceive of something so far beyond our limits of understanding that it would be less likely for us to do that than for an e-coli bacteria to have total understanding of the physics of the most advanced scientists to ever exist in any universe ever.

This is why God-myths are always populated with small Gods. These small Gods are completely unimaginably powerful to us, but in the grand context, look at Yahweh or Allah or Zeus or Athena or Ra or Osiris or any God throughout human history, and you will generally find something that, if you accept the above analogy about the limits to our comprehension, is so tiny that it gets dwarfed by the potential expanse of actual possibility and reality.

I agree totally,very well put.

[PLAYER57832]

A lot of these posts make sense. I don' take exception to 1 or 2, simple because they are self-definitions.

That is,if he wants to start by saying that God is, by definition, something beyond human understanding, it is fine as a logical argument. It has nothing to do at all with any belief I or anyone else might have, but that is irrelevant.

However, #3 is, as noted, not so well defined. In that begins a set-up that is designed to seem logical while not truly being logical. It is not logical because, beginning with item #3, not all items are defined or even broadly placed within a context (that is, saying something is infinite can be said to not specifically define it, but it is to set out parameters that can be understood in logic... it encompasses all).

Then you get to item #4 and you have pure opinion, and, if you accept the first as true, then an inaccurate statement besides. If no one can undertstand God then a fool cannot understand God.
You might say a fool thinks he/she understands God, but that is not the statement. Even then, what is a fool? (OK.. yeah.. a fool is someone engaging in this debate )

[AAFitz]

Plato warned us about sophists long ago.

Yes he did, I didn't really see this as a sophist argument though. To me it seems more along the lines of a St. Augustine type argument.

Or a Tomas Aquinas.

Pretty much those kind of things kept me for appreciating Philosophy in college, I went to college in a catholic university and in every class we went through arguments like those.

Seems like 2 opposites sides, trying to prove God with logic. Pretty much you always start with

1. God exists.

Since 1, we can deduce/conclude that iudufidsufjadsaoidjasi

That seems to be the same exact logic of the majority of believers on the site in fact, and the number one complaint of not believers.