Some guy called Anselm thought of this logical argument for the existence of 'God' back in the 11th century. It's certainly very original and ingenious. It's been influential since, causing a lot of headaches and engendering a lot of discussion and theorising concerning whether the argument is valid, and, if not, why not. |
|
Last edited by TimeDragon97; 09-02-2013 at 08:46 PM.
ERROR 404: SIGNATURE NOT FOUND
|
|
ERROR 404: SIGNATURE NOT FOUND
Yes, that's the right kind of interpretation. What's wrong with it though? What is it exactly that you disagree with in what you quoted? Do you mean the step from 4 to 5 is suspect? That step is fairly uncontroversial. From 3, we have that either God exists in the mind alone, or God exists in the mind and reality. 4 shows that the former of these leads to a contradiction, and is false. Therefore, the latter must be the case; i.e. God exists in the mind and reality, and so clearly we have 5, God exists (in reality). |
|
I mean, just because we can conceive of a maximum power, that doesn't automatically mean that it exists. |
|
ERROR 404: SIGNATURE NOT FOUND
Yes, but the argument isn't just |
|
Last edited by Xei; 09-03-2013 at 03:36 AM.
Here is a version of God that I found interesting. |
|
It's premise 3. If God exists in the mind alone as a great being, then we can simply think of something greater. Think of it in abstract terms. If you're thinking of a great car, you can think of something even better without getting into details. Or you could just think of infinity. What's better than infinity? Infinity + 1. |
|
The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
Formerly known as BLUELINE976
Just in the same way that any valid logical argument is compelling... it takes some definitions, and by a series of small logical steps, all of which seem indubitable, derives a conclusion. You accept that logical arguments are compelling, right..? It's compelling in just the same way that the following is a compelling argument that if x divides by y, and y divides by z, then x divides by z: |
|
Last edited by Xei; 09-03-2013 at 02:38 AM.
Why not? I don't get that. The argument makes the assumption that a maximally powerful being exist simply because we can conceive of one. It basically says, "I can conceive of a maximally great being. If it's maximally great, it can't only exist in my mind. Therefore, it exists." Even if that makes logical sense, who's to say we can conceive of a maximally great being? If it is maximally great, wouldn't have abilities and properties that we can't even comprehend? Abilities and properties that, upon seeing them, our puny monkey brains would explode or melt from sheer greatness? |
|
ERROR 404: SIGNATURE NOT FOUND
It wasn't sarcastic at all. If you read it, though, it addresses what you said to me and you have just repeated to Blueline. The weak ontological argument you've repeated is not the argument in this thread. For example, you complain that the argument "assumes that we conceive of a maximally great being". If you read the argument, it is clear that it doesn't make such an assumption. It defines God as the greatest conceivable being. Point 1 - that the idea of God exists in the mind - is therefore true by definition. The bit in brackets explicitly explains this. |
|
Last edited by Xei; 09-03-2013 at 01:24 PM.
Fair enough. |
|
ERROR 404: SIGNATURE NOT FOUND
The argument really doesn't say 'God exists by definition'. None of the logical steps say that. Step 4 clearly follows from step 3, and from the definition of God. And step 5 follows from step 2, which says God exists in the mind alone or God exists in the mind and reality, and step 4, which says God does not exist in the mind alone. Which of these logical steps is wrong? |
|
The argument is basically gibberish. It doesn't make sense at all. The faulty logic happens at step 4. Just because a word is poorly defined doesn't make it true. The argument assumes that because a god can't exist in just the mind due to it's definition, it must exist. However, that is a faulty assumption. |
|
How about this? |
|
I'm not always lucid, but whether I'm awake or asleep I'm always dreaming.
Neither of those is Anselm's argument though. I mean, I know the first one is supposed to be analogous rather than exactly the same, but it isn't - it doesn't have the same logical structure at all. So your attempt to show that the argument can't possibly work... didn't work. You actually rebutted Decartes' ontological argument (the argument featured in the videos above), which is different. |
|
Like I said, the argument doesn't make sense because it is based on a poorly defined definition. Lets try this. |
|
While you've elaborated on how that logic can lead to some pretty unlikely scenarios (that second one in particular ;3) it hasn't gone into specifics like the question is asking: |
|
I wasn't trying to reproduce the argument exactly, or even it's structure exactly. That's kind of how analogies work. I couldn't very well copy/paste the argument and say "doesn't that sound silly?" now could I? They are both the same KIND of argument, and illustrate the absurdity of that KIND of argument. It was a basic attempt to show that one cannot argue something into existence, or can you not refute that I have just proven that not only must unicorns exist, but that god must also not exist. |
|
I'm not always lucid, but whether I'm awake or asleep I'm always dreaming.
I think this is a legitimate demonstration that the argument cannot be right. It does not however explain what is wrong with the argument. |
|
It isn't a logical argument, it is a play on semantics masquerading as a logical argument. Everyone can tell at a glance that argument is wrong, but it is hard to show where the logic goes wrong, and the reason is because it isn't a logical argument in the first place. The error isn't in the logic but in the word play. |
|
Again you're just conflating synonyms. "The argument doesn't work if you define God to be the creator of the universe" is a nonsensical criticism, because 'God' is not defined to be the creator of the universe and there's no reason it should have been. Are you telling me that the maths argument above is also wrong, because "it doesn't work if you define y to be the number which divides by x instead of x dividing by y"? Of course it won't work - that's because you've changed it into a totally different and flawed argument. The same applies to your criticism that "God is defined by what we can conceive". Yes, it is. So what? If you really can't move past the homonymy here, I seriously suggest you remove all references to 'God' in the original argument and either replace them with something like 'G' or even just 'the greatest conceivable being'. |
|
Alright, I think I've sorted out where I will focus my efforts, and that is on the definition of god which this whole things relies upon. In fact, I'm going to incorporate it into the argument, it doesn't get to sit on the sidelines for this one. |
|
I'm not always lucid, but whether I'm awake or asleep I'm always dreaming.
|
|
I'm not always lucid, but whether I'm awake or asleep I'm always dreaming.
Bookmarks