• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Let me shorten the ontological proof of Anselm of Canterbury

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. (Wikipedia 2017)

Let me shorten the proof. It becomes:

We can think of the infinitely influential being. Because the being is infinitely influential, He exists outside our imagination.

For them, who is not getting it:

Can you think of Pink Dragon? Yes. So, it exists now in your brain cells. A creature inside the mind is less influential, than the creature in outside Reality. But because the creature in the mind is infinitely influential, it is Real in outside also.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition[1] was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. (Wikipedia 2017)
"that than which nothing greater can be thought" -- What sort of gobbledygook is that? If it's inconceivable, how can it exist in the mind? If it exists in the mind, why does it necessarily exist in reality?
What was Anselm smoking?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
They didn't have anything to smoke back then. But I hear he knew a bullfrog named Jeremiah who had some mighty fine wine.

Frog licking?
I've heard that's a thing...
images
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Let me shorten the proof. It becomes:

We can think of the infinitely influential being. Because the being is infinitely influential, He exists outside our imagination.
... which is, of course, utter nonsense.

It gets into hypocritical contradiction when we recognize that he only recognizes the existence of one "infinitely influential" being.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"that than which nothing greater can be thought" -- What sort of gobbledygook is that? If it's inconceivable, how can it exist in the mind? If it exists in the mind, why does it necessarily exist in reality?
What was Anselm smoking?
Anselm's God isn't inconceivable. In fact, his ontological argument requires that God be completely conceivable: it breaks down if only aspects of God exist in the mind, or if only an imperfect god-concept exists in the mind.

Every aspect of Anselm's God must be able to fit into the mind of a single human being.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Let me shorten the proof. It becomes:

We can think of the infinitely influential being. Because the being is infinitely influential, He exists outside our imagination.
In your 1st sentence, you imagined that being.
This conflicts with your conclusion.
 
Last edited:

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
"that than which nothing greater can be thought" -- What sort of gobbledygook is that? If it's inconceivable, how can it exist in the mind? If it exists in the mind, why does it necessarily exist in reality?
What was Anselm smoking?
Can you think of Pink Dragon? Yes. So, it exists now in your brain cells. A creature inside the mind is less influential, than the creature in Reality. But because the creature in the mind is infinitely influential, it is Real also.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
The argument is not logical. We cannot conclude that something infinite must exist outside of the mind nor can we conclude that something infinitely greater must exist outside of the mind just because the mind can "conceive" of it.

The only way the mind can conceive of something infinite is if it exists in the mind in a finite way. If it didn't exist in a finite way the mind would need an infinite amount of time to conceive of it, which is of course impossible.

So the mind cannot conceive of anything infinite without generalizing it or "remolding" it into a finite idea.

Furthermore, "we can think of the infinitely influential being" is an assumption based on a finite idea of the infinitely influential being. "We can think of the infinitely influential being," is literally not true because we can only think of such a being in a finite way.

Therefore, the argument is not logical; the conclusion is based on at least one faulty premise.
 
Last edited:

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Most such arguments concerning the "idea" of the infinite end this way because the mind only has a finite idea about the infinite. An actual infinite idea in the mind is just not possible.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Can you think of Pink Dragon? Yes. So, it exists now in your brain cells. A creature inside the mind is less influential, than the creature in Reality. But because the creature in the mind is infinitely influential, it is Real also.
It's real, but it's not Real. it's subjectively, as opposed to objectively real.
 

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Tu quoque as proof?

Well, he's assuming that the mind can conceive of the infinite. But it can only do so by conceiving of it in a finite way, like we do when we make a lemniscape symbol for the infinite. The mind cannot be shown able to conceive of the infinite, therefore, the argument falls apart without having to go any farther.

Godel proved that no logical system "all inclusive" of the infinite (including thinking) can be stated mathematically in a logical way. Godel was able to prove that mathematics itself as a system (or as a whole) is not and cannot be logically "all inclusive" of the infinite. He did this by showing that no matter how many thoughts, ideas, numbers, etc., one can put into a logical system, there is always at least one more that must be included but cannot logically be included.

Such is the infinite.
 
Last edited:

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Godel did not believe Cantor's original (mathematical) set theory to be logically inclusive of the infinite. He then set about proving it by "forcing." The proof is awesome. You ought to check it out.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Let me shorten the proof. It becomes:

We can think of the infinitely influential being. Because the being is infinitely influential, He exists outside our imagination.

For them, who is not getting it:

Can you think of Pink Dragon? Yes. So, it exists now in your brain cells. A creature inside the mind is less influential, than the creature in outside Reality. But because the creature in the mind is infinitely influential, it is Real in outside also.

Here is another clear version. The Ontological Argument

Anselm's ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists. His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). This fool has two important features.
  • He understands the claim that God exists.
  • He does not believe that God exists.
Anselm's goal is to show that this combination is unstable. Anyone who understands what it means to say that God exists can be led to see that God does exist. On this view, the atheist is not just mistaken: his position is internally inconsistent.

:leafwind:

This does not make sense. For example, I have no idea what a god is. Is it green with four arms and five heads? Is it a Pagan god? African god? Most ideas have their foundation on already existing ideas. A pink dragon exists as a thought not in reality. The foundation is the dragon. Who thought of what a dragon is supposed to look like? And the color? Which color pink? Rosemary? Hot pink? Does the dragon have three heads or one? Was from a book, a movie? What is a dragon in reality depart from our ideas and imaginations?


1. I understand the claim that god exists. Many claims are actually logical arguments. It's only a claim. Get beyond the claim, now what?

2. This is a statement of belief. Go further to those who know god does not exist, it becomes a statement of fact. You can't change facts. It's no longer a claim that a dragon "could" exist because we thought of it as an idea. Now the dragon does not exist and when we think about it, we are entertaining a figment of our imagination. Nothing wrong with that.

The pink dragon that's influential to a kid running under the bed does not mean the dragon exists in reality. Many people hear voices and see things that do not exist; yet, they experience it. If they did exist in reality, then psychology wouldn't find a need to treat those who have anxiety over what they think is there that is not. Since people have anxiety and unhealthy behavior over a non existent voice or sight, the experience or result is part of reality not the subject itself.

The subject is not real just because one is influenced by it.

By "God" we mean an absolutely unsurpassable being, a being that cannot conceivably be improved upon.​

If you can't think of the idea of a Pink Dragon, it can't be perceived, then it does not exist. How is someone influenced by something they cannot perceive?

The ignorant claims god does exist.
The knowledgeable claims god does not.
The fool gives proof of its existence.
The wise admits there are none.
 
Top