Let me shorten the ontological proof of Anselm of Canterbury

[Polymath257]

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.

So an infinitely influential Pink Dragon exists?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Yes, you did a very good job of shortening the proof and showing exactly why it is circular. You derive the existence of something from the assumption that it exists.

Unfortunately, that isn't a valid proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

1. I can conceive of an infinitely influential gay Buddhist Mickey Mouse.
2. Since an infinitely influential gay Buddhist Mickey Mouse is infinitely influential, it is real also.
3. Therefore, an infinitely influential gay Buddhist Mickey Mouse exists.
4. An infinitely influential being can also be called God.
5. Therefore:
- Mickey Mouse is God,
- God is gay, and
- God is Buddhist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Just denial. The atheism is total solipsism. Have I not the proof?

No, you do not have such a proof.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you think of Pink Dragon? Yes. So, it exists now in your brain cells.

I can think of you being wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Actually, human beings are not capable of imagining anything infinite. So, it seems your claimed proof here is severely lacking.

And, Anselm's Ontological Argument is based on flawed reasoning (a logical fallacy). It doesn't provide any logical evidence for the existence of God.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

But, you are making the claim that God is infinitely influential without proving it first. Where is your evidence that God is infinitely influential? Without that, you've got nothing but a man-made idea of what God is supposed to be.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

I really feel like I should lay this out really simply for you.

Here is your logic:
Premise 1: God is infinitely influential
Premise 2: Something is more influential if it exists in reality
Conclusion: Because God is infinitely influential and maximum influence rests on existence in reality, God exists.

This is circular reasoning (logically flawed) because you are assuming that God exists in premise 1 when you claim that God is infinitely influential. You actually make it very clear that you are making this assumption in the rest of your syllogism.

Therefore, you cannot move past premise one until you prove that God is infinitely influential. Does that make sense?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I really feel like I should lay this out really simply for you.

Here is your logic:
Premise 1: God is infinitely influential
Premise 2: Something is more influential if it exists in reality
Conclusion: Because God is infinitely influential and maximum influence rests on existence in reality, God exists.

This is circular reasoning (logically flawed) because you are assuming that God exists in premise 1 when you claim that God is infinitely influential. You actually make it very clear that you are making this assumption in the rest of your syllogism.

Therefore, you cannot move past premise one until you prove that God is infinitely influential. Does that make sense?

Yeah what does infinitely influential mean? To me, it means determinism, to the point of every thought in the human mind, and every action, is infinitely influenced by a god.

Therefore, every single sentence of this thread, including this one, is infinitely influenced by a god. So how can any person on this thread hold any opinion about this argument other than the one that a god makes them hold?

@questfortruth must believe in the circular reasoning of the ontological argument, because an infinitely influential being is maximally influencing his belief in it.

Wow, that's another layer of circular reasoning nested inside the main circular reasoning. Maybe we can go for three layers of circular reasoning?

 

[David T]

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.

 

[DavidFirth]

Many attempts have been made by some of the world's smartest people to use logic to prove that God must exist.

All have come up short. Godel has proved that it can't be done logically in a closed system. In order to prove it the proof would have to extend beyond logic, something that mathematicians and philosophers are loathe to do.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

That very much depends on what you mean by 'comprehending the infinite'. As a mathematician, I deal with infinite sets every day and happily deal with different sizes of infinity.

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.

Not quite what Godel showed, although it is close. There *are* complete systems involving the infinite. What Godel showed is that such systems cannot be described 'computationally'. This is an inherent limitation of what is known as 'first order logic', but 'second order logic' does not have such a limitation.

 

[Polymath257]

Many attempts have been made by some of the world's smartest people to use logic to prove that God must exist.

All have come up short. Godel has proved that it can't be done logically in a closed system. In order to prove it the proof would have to extend beyond logic, something that mathematicians and philosophers are loathe to do.

Well, Godel's results say nothing at all about God. They are mathematical results that concerns the limitation of axiomatic systems. One result says that any 'recursive' axiomatic system that can model the natural numbers (ordinary counting numbers) cannot prove its own consistency. Another says that in any such system, there is a statement that can be neither proved nor disproved within the system.

That said, axiom systems involving infinite sets are *typical* these days. Mathematicians happily work with infinite things with no issues. It is even a topic we bring up in undergraduate courses.

Yes, we cannot prove the consistency of these systems. And yes, there are always questions we cannot resolve. But even for the latter, there is discussion as to which statements 'should' be added and which should not. As you point out, that is not a discussion of *logic*. It tends to be a discussion of *aesthetics* instead: which assumptions produce beautiful mathematics? Philosophers and mathematicians are certain NOT loathe to address these issues.

But they have nothing to do with questions of the existence of deities. That isn't a mathematical question.

 

[questfortruth]

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.

One can think of the infinite influence: if Champion of run can touch tree A in Washington, and same time touch tree B in Moscow. See the movie "Flash"!

So an infinitely influential Pink Dragon exists?

So, you would like to remove word "God" and use the "PD" or "Pink Unicorn" instead. You have fallen into the "name-calling fallacy".

Yes, you did a very good job of shortening the proof and showing exactly why it is circular. You derive the existence of something from the assumption that it exists. ...

A circular text is A -> B -> A. What are the A and B in my text? Do not modify the text, use the exact quotes.

No, you do not have such a proof.

Let us count the "no": No, not. 2 times in single sentence. Solipsism?

I can think of you being wrong.

My "wrong-hood" is just a structure inside your brain. Delete it please, but do not hurt yourself. Jesus loves you.

But, you are making the claim that God is infinitely influential without proving it first. Where is your evidence that God is infinitely influential? Without that, you've got nothing but a man-made idea of what God is supposed to be.

It is inside my brain. Then, the cause of proof, proves, that it is not only inside mine brain.

I really feel like I should lay this out really simply for you.

Here is your logic:
Premise 1: God is infinitely influential INSIDE MINE BRAIN.
Premise 2: Something is more influential if it exists in reality
Conclusion: Because God is infinitely influential and maximum influence rests on existence in reality, God exists.

This is circular reasoning (logically flawed) because you are assuming that God exists in premise 1 (NOT, IT is FACT, not PREMISE. GOD EXISTS in MINE MIND) when you claim that God is infinitely influential (IN OUTSIDE REALITY, I AM PROVING IT). You actually make it very clear that you are making this assumption in the rest of your syllogism.

Therefore, you cannot move past premise one until you prove that God is infinitely influential. Does that make sense?

My remarks are inside the quote of leibowde84.

 

[questfortruth]

.....
If you can't think of the idea of a Pink Dragon, it can't be perceived, ....

Let us think following thought: "The Almighty God has made miracle: dragon (like in a movie), which skin is pink. Dragon has wings, and looks like dino. Adam has named it Pink Dragon."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Let us think following thought: "The Almighty God has made miracle: dragon (like in a movie), which skin is pink. Dragon has wings, and looks like dino. Adam has named it Pink Dragon."

You just gave me an idea of a dragon, now I can perceive it. If you just said "all mighty god" I have nothing to go on other than it's adjectives (like the pink skin on a dragon) but anything more than what's written and said, I can't perceive.

If you didn't say anything about the dragon, I have to go off my view of the dragon. If I never heard of the idea and/or experienced a real dragon, the word makes no sense at all.

 

[questfortruth]

You just gave me an idea of a dragon, now I can perceive it. If you just said "all mighty god" I have nothing to go on other than it's adjectives (like the pink skin on a dragon) but anything more than what's written and said, I can't perceive.

If you didn't say anything about the dragon, I have to go off my view of the dragon. If I never heard of the idea and/or experienced a real dragon, the word makes no sense at all.

Then think following thought:
The "Pink Dragon" is miraculously created, has non-physical structure. Non-physical means, that it can not be described by Physics Laws ever.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then think following thought:
The "Pink Dragon" is miraculously created, has non-physical structure. Non-physical means, that it can not be described by Physics Laws ever.

Once you give me an idea, object, whatever with it's adjectives, I can perceive it whether if the word or idea is something I am already familiar with or something you describe that I can imagine myself.

If I said Addnafinna and told you to explain what this is (as I ask about god) can you do it without making up anything?

 

[leibowde84]

One can think of the infinite influence: if Champion of run can touch tree A in Washington, and same time touch tree B in Moscow. See the movie "Flash"!


So, you would like to remove word "God" and use the "PD" or "Pink Unicorn" instead. You have fallen into the "name-calling fallacy".


A circular text is A -> B -> A. What are the A and B in my text? Do not modify the text, use the exact quotes.


Let us count the "no": No, not. 2 times in single sentence. Solipsism?


My "wrong-hood" is just a structure inside your brain. Delete it please, but do not hurt yourself. Jesus loves you.


It is inside my brain. Then, the cause of proof, proves, that it is not only inside mine brain.


My remarks are inside the quote of leibowde84.

Why do you think that you can imagine an infinitely influential being in your mind when it is impossible to imagine anything infinite?

And, even if you could, why would you think that being able to imagine an infinitely influential being in your mind would in any way evidence that being existing outside your mind?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My "wrong-hood" is just a structure inside your brain. Delete it please, but do not hurt yourself. Jesus loves you.

Oh, no, because I think you couldn't be more wrong. I believe you're maximally wrong... so wrong that your wrongness is that than which nothing can be more wrong. Therefore, you must be wrong in reality, because if you were only wrong in my brain, then you wouldn't be maximally wrong.