Alceste
Vagabond
Neither is God.
-
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!
Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Neither is God.
Go figure.
It is not "greater than that which can be conceived". If that were the case, then it couldn't be conceived at all.
It is "a being which nothing greater can be conceived"-- basically, the greatest possible thing you can think of.
Your formulation takes it a step further: a thing greater than the greatest possible thing you can think of.
Alceste
Vagabond
I'm waiting for delivery of my daily Poutine and fireball. Where is it? After all, it's the greatest thing I can think of, and an actual Poutine and fireball is greater than an imaginary one, and more delicious.
Generally, it's an acceptable statement about reality that it is greater than what is conceived (imagined) to be.
All I said to Alceste was that she admitted to nothing more than conceived things.
Hey everybody, Willamena has a day job, like a normal person.
There's no time! We gotta sort this **** out now or else we're all just going to keep taking turns bashing Anselm to bits.
Hey everybody, Willamena has a day job, like a normal person.
There's no time! We gotta sort this **** out now or else we're all just going to keep taking turns bashing Anselm to bits.
Hey I have time to bash Anselm and work my day job! I rock. Or my job does. Either way, we're rocking.
There you go: Multi-tasking! I'm also studying, sort of.
Alceste
Vagabond
I'm supposed to be drawing sprites.
Like fairy folk?
Alceste
Vagabond
Like for video games. Last month was a flying porcupine, dragons, a toad and a few other bits and bobs. This month is a hamster, two baddies, and a wood texture tile.
Like for video games. Last month was a flying porcupine, dragons, a toad and a few other bits and bobs. This month is a hamster, two baddies, and a wood texture tile.
Neat. How did you get into video game design?
Alceste
Vagabond
I married an Indie developer. We have one commercial game on the market, one in production, and a few free mini-games for rapid development clubs and contests.
Sweet! I should marry one of those.
When it arrives, will you give me a call? :eat:
How is that different than the fool in the argument?
EDIT:
It seems to me that, even if you take the argument at face value and accept all the strange assumptions, the argument still fails to show that an atheist (or, someone who can conceive of God) is being logically inconsistant:
From the article in the OP:
If I am conceiving an MGB, I can conceive it to exist (Premise 3). That is the greatest possible thing I can think of.
Premise 5 does not add anything. If this being actually existed, it would be no different than the conception I have of it in Premise 3: A being that nothing greater can be conceived that exists. Thus, the conception of the Being in Premise 5 is precisely the same as the conception of the Being in Premise 3. It doesn't become greater.
The only way for it to be greater than the conception in Premise 3, is for it to be greater than can be conceived-- past conception.
It's probably possible that there are things greater than we can imagined.
But if that's so, then the fool isn't being inconsistant.
Last edited:
Anselm's argument (a better translation):
Anselm's Ontological Argument
This is how I read it. Anselm's statement of faith in the first line says that God is "as we believe" and "that which we believe," being "me" and everything in the whole world. God, to those who believe, is not exempt from that reality: we believe in the world, we believe that reality is. He is a philosopher and presents his argument from an epistemological standpoint (having to do with conscious knowing and believing).
"God" to the "fool in his heart" is no more than what they conceive, because to them God is not real. They can understand the definition of it and understand what they imagine, but then when they declare, "I don't believe in God," since they know "in their understanding" that God is not real, they are denying nothing more than what they've conceived.
Anselm doesn't induldge idolatry--creating an image of God "in the understanding" and investing in understanding that that image is God--so he is careful to define God. "Something than which nothing greater can be imagined" isn't about how "maximal" it is or even about it, it's about us imagining.
In Anselm's day, as it is today, "what you see is what you get." People understood the world around them was reality. I interpret Anselm to be insisting that God is "something" behind reality--I believe he made the distinction, probably from Aristotle, of dualism similar to that which separates "mind" from "objective reality," though he understands them as "understanding" and "god." The result of this is an understanding that the world exists in the understanding or conception. From the perspective of us understanding the world, and that the world is real, the thing greater that can be imagined is to understand that "something" actual lies beyond conception. That (actual reality as opposed to reality in the understanding) is the thing "than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Now, here's the thing: to insist that an "actual reality" actually exists beyond imagination would be a category error, one that Anselm doesn't make. We do imagine reality--we don't know reality any other way. We are stuck "in the understanding," and the really real reality "out there" is entirely imagined. To us. Objectivity is imagined. That's not to say it's not there, but epistemologically, to insist it is known in an actual sense creates a "reality of the gaps." Anselm, at least in this translation, doesn't do that.
"Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Hello really real reality.
Now let's skip ahead to the end of the story (quickly, because I have to work again).
"There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."
Anselm's Ontological Argument
This is how I read it. Anselm's statement of faith in the first line says that God is "as we believe" and "that which we believe," being "me" and everything in the whole world. God, to those who believe, is not exempt from that reality: we believe in the world, we believe that reality is. He is a philosopher and presents his argument from an epistemological standpoint (having to do with conscious knowing and believing).
"God" to the "fool in his heart" is no more than what they conceive, because to them God is not real. They can understand the definition of it and understand what they imagine, but then when they declare, "I don't believe in God," since they know "in their understanding" that God is not real, they are denying nothing more than what they've conceived.
Anselm doesn't induldge idolatry--creating an image of God "in the understanding" and investing in understanding that that image is God--so he is careful to define God. "Something than which nothing greater can be imagined" isn't about how "maximal" it is or even about it, it's about us imagining.
In Anselm's day, as it is today, "what you see is what you get." People understood the world around them was reality. I interpret Anselm to be insisting that God is "something" behind reality--I believe he made the distinction, probably from Aristotle, of dualism similar to that which separates "mind" from "objective reality," though he understands them as "understanding" and "god." The result of this is an understanding that the world exists in the understanding or conception. From the perspective of us understanding the world, and that the world is real, the thing greater that can be imagined is to understand that "something" actual lies beyond conception. That (actual reality as opposed to reality in the understanding) is the thing "than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Now, here's the thing: to insist that an "actual reality" actually exists beyond imagination would be a category error, one that Anselm doesn't make. We do imagine reality--we don't know reality any other way. We are stuck "in the understanding," and the really real reality "out there" is entirely imagined. To us. Objectivity is imagined. That's not to say it's not there, but epistemologically, to insist it is known in an actual sense creates a "reality of the gaps." Anselm, at least in this translation, doesn't do that.
"Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Hello really real reality.
Now let's skip ahead to the end of the story (quickly, because I have to work again).
"There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality."
- As we grasp definition we understand something, and by this means we may understand that thing to be real. (Hey, look! There's a train barrelling down the tracks towards you.)
- And as we understand something to exist in reality, then as we imagine it has actual reality, the "in reality" in understanding part has a greater. (Oops! Better get off those tracks.)
- God is that actuality (or fundamental) of reality.
crystalonyx
Well-Known Member
The greatest thing a human can conceive may not be that great.
Alceste
Vagabond
I dunno, a daily dose of free poutine and fireball would be pretty damn great.