1. 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

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by questfortruth, Oct 25, 2017.

  1. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    5,012
    Ratings:
    +800
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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.
     
    #1 questfortruth, Oct 25, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
  2. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    29,754
    Ratings:
    +16,164
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    "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?
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,156
    Ratings:
    +37,818
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    They didn't have anything to smoke back then. But I hear he knew a bullfrog named Jeremiah who had some mighty fine wine.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  4. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    21,362
    Ratings:
    +11,291
    Religion:
    Scientism
    Frog licking?
    I've heard that's a thing...
    [​IMG]
     
  5. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    64,709
    Ratings:
    +22,869
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    ... 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.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    64,709
    Ratings:
    +22,869
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    29,754
    Ratings:
    +16,164
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    211,748
    Ratings:
    +79,925
    Religion:
    Atheist
    In your 1st sentence, you imagined that being.
    This conflicts with your conclusion.
     
    #8 Revoltingest, Oct 25, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
  9. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    5,012
    Ratings:
    +800
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    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.
     
  10. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    #10 DavidFirth, Oct 25, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  11. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  12. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    29,754
    Ratings:
    +16,164
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    It's real, but it's not Real. it's subjectively, as opposed to objectively real.
     
  13. questfortruth

    questfortruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    5,012
    Ratings:
    +800
    Religion:
    Eastern Orthodox Christianity
    Just denial. The atheism is total solipsism. Have I not the proof?
     
  14. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    29,754
    Ratings:
    +16,164
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    ????
    How so. If you have proof please submit it.
     
  15. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    I just showed that your proof isn't logical. Do you have another?
     
  16. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    It it were logically possible to prove that God must exist men would have done it long ago.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    29,754
    Ratings:
    +16,164
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Tu quoque as proof?
     
  18. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
    #18 DavidFirth, Oct 25, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
  19. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  20. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    37,348
    Ratings:
    +13,293
    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.
     
Loading...