• 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

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
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.
What is an aspect of God?
 

Willamena

Just me
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.
Actually, it goes something like this:

Let "X" mean something of which nothing greater can be imagined. No matter what we can imagine, X is greater than what we can imagine and nothing is greater than X.

Let's imagine an apple. Sweet and juicy, or tart and dry, easy to bite into or hard to bite into--however you like your apple, imagine that. If that imagined apple coincides with a real apple then we have imagined something greater than just the apple we imagined. We have imagined (in this scenario) that the apple is real. Imaginings are composed of things we've encountered in past experience. We have tasted apples that are sweet and apples that are tart, so we can imagine them. And, in imagination, we can compose things that we have experienced to make things we know are not real (unicorn = horse + tusk, and a thing greater than "in the mind" = thing "in the mind" + reality).

But what would be greater than imagining that the apple exists? Well, that would be the apple actually existing apart from our imagining, i.e. objectively.

If X exists only as we imagine X to be, then we can imagine something that is greater than X, we can imagine that X is in reality just as we imagined X to be. But we have defined X as something of which nothing greater can be imagined.

In imagining X is real we have imagined something greater than X. The only thing that is greater than our imagining that X is real is X actually being real.

Based on the premise of our definition of X, X must exist.​

Anselm's proof is not that a god exists, but that anything defined this way must exist.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Actually, it goes something like this:

Let "X" mean something of which nothing greater can be imagined. No matter what we can imagine, X is greater than what we can imagine and nothing is greater than X.

Let's imagine an apple. Sweet and juicy, or tart and dry, easy to bite into or hard to bite into--however you like your apple, imagine that. If that imagined apple coincides with a real apple then we have imagined something greater than just the apple we imagined. We have imagined (in this scenario) that the apple is real. Imaginings are composed of things we've encountered in past experience. We have tasted apples that are sweet and apples that are tart, so we can imagine them. And, in imagination, we can compose things that we have experienced to make things we know are not real (unicorn = horse + tusk, and a thing greater than "in the mind" = thing "in the mind" + reality).

But what would be greater than imagining that the apple exists? Well, that would be the apple actually existing apart from our imagining, i.e. objectively.

If X exists only as we imagine X to be, then we can imagine something that is greater than X, we can imagine that X is in reality just as we imagined X to be. But we have defined X as something of which nothing greater can be imagined.

In imagining X is real we have imagined something greater than X. The only thing that is greater than our imagining that X is real is X actually being real.

Based on the premise of our definition of X, X must exist.​

Anselm's proof is not that a god exists, but that anything defined this way must exist.
Nailed it.
 
Top