Anselms proof. completely illogical?

[Certainty]

Anselms proof states that:

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

However we can use this logic to completely disprove the existance of god:

1: the creation of the world is the most amazing achievement

2: the merit of this achievement is the product of (a) intrinsic quality and (b) the ability of it's creator.

3: the greater the handicap on the creator the more impressive the achievement.

4:the most formidable handicap for the creator would be to not exist.

5:If we supposed that God was the creator... then the greatest possible being would obviously be one who created everything while not existing

6: An existing god therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater can be conceived because an even greater creator would be one that doesn't exist at all.

7: therefore god does not exist.

Therefore shorely the whole argument is invalid, and shouldn't be used at all (or taught at school) ?

Do you think this is a fair summary, or am I missing something?

 

[Gracchus]

Anselms proof...

I know! I know! We studied this in Philosophy 110!

... states that:

God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.

Strictly speaking: The concept of God is an idea. The concept is a symbol for something that may or may not be real. The concept never becomes the real thing.

God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.

Some concepts of God do indeed bear internal contradictions. Some concepts may be internally consistent but be contrary to real-world observations. The term "God" refers to many different concepts.

If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.

A real thing is not a more perfect concept, or to put it another way, a concept is a way of referring to a thing that may or may not exist. A reality is not a perfect concept, the concept and the reality are two different "things".

Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is.

And it is possible that (Godwin Alert!) Hitler was a greater man than Paul of Tarsus.

This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.

Is it even possible for there to be a being so great that no being can be greater? If not (and it has not been demonstrated that such a being can exist) then that concept of such a God involves a contradiction.

Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.

Well, it is obvious that any god that existed in Anselm's understanding was every bit as flawed as Anselm's obviously flawed understanding.

Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

Reductio ad absurdum! It is possible to prove anything from flawed premises. QED: Anselm's premises are flawed.

However we can use this logic to completely disprove the existance of god: ...
Therefore shorely the whole argument is invalid, and shouldn't be used at all (or taught at school) ?

The argument may be valid but the premises are flawed. And I found this argument most instructive in an upper division philosophy course. You can learn a lot from other people's mistakes.

Do you think this is a fair summary, or am I missing something?

You missed a bit, but you weren't unfair about it.

 

[Girder of Loins]

Anselms proof states that:

1. God exists in our understanding. This means that the concept of God resides as an idea in our minds.
2. God is a possible being, and might exist in reality. He is possible because the concept of God does not bear internal contradictions.
3. If something exists exclusively in our understanding and might have existed in reality then it might have been greater. This simply means that something that exists in reality is perfect (or great). Something that is only a concept in our minds could be greater by actually existing.
4. Suppose (theoretically) that God only exists in our understanding and not in reality.
5. If this were true, then it would be possible for God to be greater then he is (follows from premise #3).
6. This would mean that God is a being in which a greater is possible.
7. This is absurd because God, a being in which none greater is possible, is a being in which a greater is possible. Herein lies the contradiction.
8. Thus it follows that it is false for God to only exist in our understanding.
9. Hence God exists in reality as well as our understanding.

However we can use this logic to completely disprove the existance of god:

1: the creation of the world is the most amazing achievement

2: the merit of this achievement is the product of (a) intrinsic quality and (b) the ability of it's creator.

3: the greater the handicap on the creator the more impressive the achievement.

4:the most formidable handicap for the creator would be to not exist.

5:If we supposed that God was the creator... then the greatest possible being would obviously be one who created everything while not existing

6: An existing god therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater can be conceived because an even greater creator would be one that doesn't exist at all.

7: therefore god does not exist.

Therefore shorely the whole argument is invalid, and shouldn't be used at all (or taught at school) ?

Do you think this is a fair summary, or am I missing something?

The only problem with your logic is that the creation of the universe is His greatest achievement. And premise #4 is illogical for something cannot come nothing. It would have to have come from an existing thing for something to come from it.

 

[quatona]

1. God exists in our understanding.

Does it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anselm makes much more sense if you accept metaphysical Platonism, which I personally don't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tinker Grey]

Anselm makes much more sense if you accept metaphysical Platonism, which I personally don't.


eudaimonia,

Mark

^^This.

It seems strange to posit that because I can think something it must exist, if not in physical/mental reality (per the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) then it exists in a non-physical/non-mental reality.

If this were true, it certainly cannot be substantiated. Perhaps I've been corrupted by an "overly" scientific age. For me, an idea should at least have the potential of being substantiated in order to be considered. Or, alternately, we could flirt with ideas that we don't yet know if we could substantiate them.

The idea that there could be non-physical reality is inherently unsubstantiatable.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Well, I'm not even sure the theory of Forms posits that because one can think of something, it must exist. I know it does posit that everything extant has a perfect form in the nebulous mental reality. Perhaps under that system, thoughts are also echoes of the perfect Form in the mental reality?

 

[Bushido216]

Replace "God" with "Giant Spaghetti Monster" and you've more or less disproven the idea.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, I'm not even sure the theory of Forms posits that because one can think of something, it must exist. I know it does posit that everything extant has a perfect form in the nebulous mental reality. Perhaps under that system, thoughts are also echoes of the perfect Form in the mental reality?

Well, I'm not entirely sure what platonism entails. The Princeton site insists on using lower case for platonism since it is not clear that Plato would espouse the ideas that metaphysical platonism entails.

However, it is this sort of idea that helps the following imaginary discussion take place:

Person A: Imagine a rock that exists on a little planet around a little sun in the galaxy of Andromeda.
Person B: OK
A: Everything that could be said about that rock is true or false, right?
B: OK
A: And ideas exist in the mind right?
B: OK
A: So, there must be a god since someone must think all those thoughts about that rock that we don't know about (and thus cannot think about).
B: What?

The implicit assumption is that anything that can be thought is thought. And since there are things that can be thought that no sentient being can be around to think about, god must be the mind that thinks them.

There seems to be confusion between the idea that something that could be said (or thought) about that rock being true and requiring someone think that thought in order for that proposition to be true.

One may think this is silly, but I've heard this line of thought has been attributed to Alvin Plantinga. Can't attest to that though.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Therefore shorely the whole argument is invalid, and shouldn't be used at all (or taught at school) ?

I think it is valid. Kind of at least. But it's extremely susceptible to rejected premises. In this version of the ontological argument premises two and seven are prime candidates. Premise two because, well, I might not be convinced that God is possible*.

Another thing is the definition of God that is implicit in this argument. This is why I pointed to premise seven above. God is solely defined as the greatest possilbe thing, at that it is pretty much. Wrt to what it means to be greater, or even the greatest, the only criterion that the argument has to offer is existence. What this means is that even if metaphysical materialism were true God would still exist. God would be the (set of) greatest thing(s) in the total set of all existing metaphysical materialistic things.

IOW, it is a nearly useless argument.





* In fact, as a strong atheist, I would say God is impossible. However, that is moot because it refers to a different definition of God that what Anselm's argument has to offer anyway.

 

[Cabal]

Replace "God" with "Giant Spaghetti Monster" and you've more or less disproven the idea.

This. Replace "God" and "greatness" with "Superman" (or The Hulk) and "strength".

Then you can get on to the much more interesting discussion - which is stronger?

 

[keith99]

This. Replace "God" and "greatness" with "Superman" (or The Hulk) and "strength".

Then you can get on to the much more interesting discussion - which is stronger?

Next week proving a Ham Sandwich is better than God.

 

[Cabal]

Next week proving a Ham Sandwich is better than God.

It totally is! And that silly Yahweh called it "unclean"

 

[Pikaia]

I agree with Gracchus. The problem lies with the extension of the idea of God into God Him(Her, It)self. God cannot be greater, but the idea of God can, so the idea that God can truly exist in the mind is a faulty premise. For instance, I can think of a chocolate cake stuffed with anchovies. This object is possible, and "exists" in my mind. Chocolate cakes and anchovies must have a taste, as I've defined them, but the ones in my mind, being but ideas, don't. Therefore, such a cake must truly exist! Everyone be on the lookout! Perhaps God is eating it, right now!

 

[variant]

I agree with Gracchus. The problem lies with the extension of the idea of God into God Him(Her, It)self. God cannot be greater, but the idea of God can, so the idea that God can truly exist in the mind is a faulty premise. For instance, I can think of a chocolate cake stuffed with anchovies. This object is possible, and "exists" in my mind. Chocolate cakes and anchovies must have a taste, as I've defined them, but the ones in my mind, being but ideas, don't. Therefore, such a cake must truly exist! Everyone be on the lookout! Perhaps God is eating it, right now!

I think you might be on to something there.

I don't think a human mind is capable of being complex enough to contain a complete idea of a God that was complex enough to create the universe in it's entirety.

The idea of anything is a faint impressionistic logical afterglow in a mind, and is limited to the minds capabilities.

 

[Gracchus]

I think you might be on to something there.

I don't think a human mind is capable of being complex enough to contain a complete idea of a God that was complex enough to create the universe in it's entirety.

The idea of anything is a faint impressionistic logical afterglow in a mind, and is limited to the minds capabilities.

I think that "God" can be defined as "What is real". Then, I can make it my quest to refine my idea of "God" to match better and better what is observable and testable in the real world.
It is a matter for infinite recursion. An idea is "true" to the extent that it accurately depicts reality.

"God is truth. Love is lagniappe."

 

[Cabal]

I think the oenological argument trumps the ontological one any day

 

[Tinker Grey]

Would you like some cheese with that? Make mine bleu.

 

[variant]

I think that "God" can be defined as "What is real". Then, I can make it my quest to refine my idea of "God" to match better and better what is observable and testable in the real world.
It is a matter for infinite recursion. An idea is "true" to the extent that it accurately depicts reality.

"God is truth. Love is lagniappe."

I understand that by playing with definitions you can make anything exist.

But, nevermind I was reading the rest of the argument incorrectly.

 

[thephilosophizer]

I think it is important for understanding Anselm's argument that we go by his definitions, which is that what we call God is the concept of "that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought" and so therefore by the subject's definition, if it didn't exist in actuality but only in the mind then something better could be thought, making it not what it is, which is impossible.