Ontological Arguement and God

Anselm still believed that God created the universe. His argument doesn't prove that God created the universe. So, God's definition has to be changed to fit the argument or the argument has to be changed to fit God.

EDIT: I meant that the argument doesn't prove that God has the ability to create either.

 

But the argument works to prove he exists regardless of what else God is.

 

I'd think what God can and can't do and what he is and isn't should be a factor in whether he exists or not.

Anyways, you're basing the argument off of reality being greater than imagination. Would this not mean that everything that exists in reality is equally great. So for there to be a "greatest" being, it would have to be beyond reality. We don't know what is beyond reality. Therefore we don't know if God exists.

 

It would not mean that everything is equally great, I'm not really sure where you got that from. In the case of the greatest being, it is only truly the greatest being if it exists in reality. This is not necessarily the case with other things, like the island, because we are dealing with "greatest." Refer to the island analogy in the first post, which shows that this argument does not work for anything else.

 

I'm not arguing about other things. I'm saying there's two different definitions of great being used. One being to determine what the "greatest being" is and the other being the "it's greater to exist in reality than in imagination" definition. Since it is greater to exist in reality than in imagination, than everything that is imaginable is equally as great in reality. To imagine a "greatest" being would be using some different definition of great thus said being would have to be defined to actually be proven true.
And how can one truly be the "greatest being imaginable" if there are things that we can not yet imagine. There are things in the universe we do not know of.
This is a flawed argument. We don't know if God exists or doesn't exist and undoubtedly never will.

 

So doesn't that inherently make any individual aspiring to be closer to god actually an individual aspiring to attain perfection? With perfection being subjective, it seems like a metaphorical structure designed to attain 'Nirvana', God not being an entity but the projected ideal psychological mindset for the individual? It would explain the grandeur of religious stories and emotional undertones.

 

The greatest being is only truly the greatest being imaginable when it exists in reality. Therefore the definitions are the same. It is the greatest being imaginable regardless of our knowledge of what we know to exist - one can already imagine things greater then that which we can "prove" to exist in the present.

I'm not sure, my background is philosophy, not religious studies. It makes sense that trying to be closer to God would mean trying to become more perfect, or more like him, as the whole point of the process is self betterment through living without sin.

 

So a being is only truly great when it exists in reality, no? This means every being is equally great, as I've been saying. So, God would have to exist beyond reality, meaning we can't prove God exists because we can't prove anything beyond reality.
If we can imagine things greater than what is proven to exist, than we can't prove God to exist. We can only imagine him to exist. All this argument is doing is trying to define God into existence.

Also, if God is the greatest being imaginable, would Satan be the worst being imaginable? Because then Satan would have to exist only in imagination since it's worse to exist in imagination than reality. Meaning, the Bible is wrong on account of Satan and can't be taken to account for God. Anselm's definition of God can't be used to prove God's existence if so, therefore you can't prove God but you can still try to prove the greatest being imaginable.

Finally, back to your reasoning for not being able to use the "perfect island" argument.

You never responded to my argument that perfection is a concept whereas God is a being.
Plus, the whole "greatest" vs "greatest thing." Then, you can't say God is the "greatest being" but that he is just the "greatest" whatever it may be (not sure how to word it to make sense). Would the universe not be the "greatest" since we can't imagine what is outside of the universe? You're just labeling the universe as being God. I don't know what else to add so I'll just wait to see what you have to say.

 

No. "A being is greater when it exists in reality than merely in the mind," not "all beings that exist are equally great owing to their existence."

I don't know, the argument doesn't cover anything other than the greatest being imaginable. I don't see why the bible being wrong has anything to do with Anselm's argument being wrong. The whole bible doesn't have to be nonfiction for God to exist.

Well, based on this argument, perfection is a being, not merely a concept. And it does make sense, because Descartes is arguing for "perfection itself," which he calls God. So it isn't "perfect something." Just because we can't imagine what is outside of the universe doesn't make it the greatest thing, it just means you can't imagine it. I'm not labeling the universe as God, the universe is the universe, and it is not the greatest being imaginable. It is something that is there, and just because I don't know what is outside of it, doesn't mean I can't imagine what is out there. Be that as it may, it has no relevance to this, because not being able to imagine anything besides the universe doesn't make it the greatest thing imaginable, it just means I don't know what is beyond it.

 

How do you define great when used in the context of "greatest being?"

Earlier you said since Anselm was a monk that his definition of God has to be used and that any other definition is wrong. Presumably his definition of God is established from the Bible so if the Bible is wrong, you're only arguing for the greatest being imaginable and not for God.

So you're changing definitions to fit the argument? Perfection isn't a being. Perfection is a concept. God can't be perfection, he has to be the most perfect.


Why does there have to be a greatest being? A "greatest" being can exist or cannot exist. It doesn't have to exist. This argument assumes that there is a "greatest" being. Can't this argument also prove that we can't imagine the "greatest" being?


And a little late reply to your little statement at the bottom "Most will probably say no:" Most will say no because this doesn't scientifically prove God. Again, this is only trying to define God into existence.

 

Like I said, the whole bible doesn't have to be right for this argument to work. It only covers God. The Bible doesn't have to be a "believe it all or believe none" kind of thing.

There has to be a greatest being in reality due to the conclusion of the argument, not the premises. It assumes there is an idea of the greatest being in the mind, which there must be, because we wouldn't be having this argument otherwise.

To address scientifically proving, I don't think this argument is any less concrete than grouping observations together, inferring a conclusion that we assume based on the observations, and labelling it as truth (science.) For more on that matter, see my Hume thread. Now we are getting into a whole other realm of the religious debate. Many argue that science has just replaced religion in people's search for answers, and since is is more likely to be true, they accept it as absolute truth, in the same way people used to accept religion as absolute truth. However, science is really just trying to make generalizations through inferences that are not actually there. All that is there is a bunch of observations that we artificially group together. Therefore, just because God can't be proved by science doesn't make him not exist.

 

Anselm's logic is flawed. Claiming that God is the greatest thing so it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in one's mind contains two fallacious assumptions: First, I don't agree that existing in reality is greater than existing in one's mind, and there is no basis provided for that. Second, the conclusion that can be made from this argument is that the fool thinks that God exists in reality, or at least that God exists in his reality, because his mind is not my mind, and therefore his reality is not necessarily my reality.

 

Well, I would think that something would only truly be great if it could exist in reality. If it only existed in the mind it would seem rather pointless to me, therefore not great.

Anselm doesn't assume the fool thinks God exists in reality, he assumes the fool has the idea of God in his mind. The fact that the idea is there makes the argument work.

 

I once had a very beautiful dream, one which I will never forget. I would even go so far as to say it changed my perspective on many things.

 

What I'm saying is that you can't argue that this proves God exists but that a greatest being exists. The greatest being is God only if God exists.

If the premises are wrong, then would that not lead to a different conclusion?

Can you prove that it is not impossible for the greatest being to exist? Does this argument prove that there is only one greatest being, or is it possible that there are more (if one/they exist(s))?

Well, something can only be great if it exists in reality. How can something be great in the mind? What is in the mind is only a concept of something, not an actual thing. There is a difference between what exists in the mind and what exists in reality. Something in the mind is a concept/idea/thought whereas something in reality is a thing (not sure what word to use).
Saying it's greater to exist in reality than in the mind is sort of a flawed statement. Something is only great if it exists whereas God in the mind doesn't exist (in the same way that something exists in reality).


With whatever you reply to me with, I assume you'll want me to address my statement that you're only arguing for the greatest being and not God. God (in a religious sense) has a lot of qualities given to him. This "greatest being" isn't defined. Saying it doesn't matter what qualities it has is a big claim when stating that the greatest being is God. For example, God is said to be omnipotent. For omnipotence to be a great quality, you would first have to prove that one can be omnipotent. So, no one knows what qualities the "greatest being" has/would have therefore you can't slap the label "God" on it.

 

I'm pointing out the flaw in the argument. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The correct conclusion would be that the fool thinks that god exists in reality, not that god does exist in reality.

By his same logic, I consider myself in my mind to be God. It is greater to be God in reality than it is to be God in my mind, so therefore I am also God in reality.

No - the correct conclusion is that I THINK that I am God in reality.

 

Such elaborate responses. There is no proof god exists it is solely faith.

 

The arguments seem valid to me, although I can't understand how one can go from a definition of something to then concluding that therefore that thing must exist. I Just can't wrap my head around that...

 

Not just a definition; in addition, the existence of the thought of God in the mind