Anselms proof. completely illogical?

[quatona]

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.

Funnily it also means that because I can think of something greater than biblegod biblegod can´t be God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think it is important for understanding Anselm's argument that we go by his definitions

This great stress on definitions is what makes his argument so rationalistic. We are asked, in effect, to assume that "that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought" must exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

To me it seems that the major problem lies in the use of a completely unquantifiable, subjective term such as "great" for the key criterium. Without providing any definition (not to mention a proper or usable one) for it, on top.

 

[thephilosophizer]

Funnily it also means that because I can think of something greater than biblegod biblegod can´t be God.

Well of course this is always where personal morality and preferences will affect how you view the argument, but I think Anselm would most definitely disagree with you. In fact, he spends much more of the Proslogion explaining why "biblegod" is the best God can be and why his nature is just as it should be than he does on the argument itself. Perhaps that is due in some part to channeling aristotle, but in any case he most certainly would argue that your definition of greater would be flawed if God can't be God.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The biggest limitation to this is that even if there was some God that conformed to something like Anselm's idea, Anselm's creativity might not be as great as other believers in God, so those greater ideas might indeed render the greatness of the God that might actually exist according to Anselm's subjective definition actually less than great.

 

[quatona]

Well of course this is always where personal morality and preferences will affect how you view the argument, but I think Anselm would most definitely disagree with you. In fact, he spends much more of the Proslogion explaining why "biblegod" is the best God can be and why his nature is just as it should be than he does on the argument itself. Perhaps that is due in some part to channeling aristotle, but in any case he most certainly would argue that your definition of greater would be flawed if God can't be God.

So it all comes down to circular reasoning?

 

[quatona]

Another weakness of the deduction lies in #3.
Who is to say that "existing in reality" makes something "greater"?

I could as well posit that something is greater when I am able to create it by the mere power of my imagination even though it doesn´t "exist in reality".
In which case this proof for god´s existence would be immediately be turned into a refutation of god´s existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If one removes the requirement that what one imagines must exist in reality, one is left with asking what is the greatest thing that exists in reality, and we'd end up with something along the lines of the natural universe, possibly leading towards pantheism, at least if one feels obligated to call the universe "God".

In any case, Anselm's argument is completely underwhelming to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Not to mention numbers don't cease to be greater when they are merely concepts, since they clearly have undeniable importance to everyday life in one way or another. But just because there aren't actual numbers in physical existence doesn't mean they are less than if there were physical numbers.