![]() |
Anslem's Ontological Argument
This is an interesting argument. Though it contains a fatal flaw, something quite trivial. What is wrong with the argument, and, what part of it is wrong?
Anselms Ontological Argument: 1) Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. 2) The idea of God exists in the mind. 3) A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. 4) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. 5) We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists. By following the rules of the argument it would conclude that God must exist, which is some interesting trickery. So, what do you make of it? |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
|
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Well that was easy. Thread done.
I should have rephrased it to make it less obvious, which is what was done someplace else : I |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything) Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
What could you not do if you are omnipotent? Well theoretically there shouldn't be anything, because anything that it cannot do just contradicts the definition of the omnipotent. You could get paradoxical and say that "God cannot destroy God and then create God", technically it should be able to still do that though. I'm sure there's a better example out there. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
god is dead
|
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
It's like saying God can create a system of equations that he can't solve. It's not that God would be incapable per se, it's that such capability can't exist. An omnipotent being creating an object he could not move can be thought of as an inconsistent system of equations; the premises, immovable rock and omnipotent being, are inconsistent and cannot simultaneously exist. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Yeah, the counter arguments usually tackles the definition of omnipotent. The most common say that god doesn't need necessarily be completely omnipotent, but that instead he is capable of doing anything "in his nature", or in other words, capable of doing whatever he wants.
@spenner: I thought I implied that, I guess my explanation wasn't clear. Basically the "proof" shows that nothing can be omnipotent and since god must be an omnipotent being, then he can't exist. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
I'm not a huge math nerd but I'm pretty sure ∞+1 is perfectly valid. If we could assume an anything-doing omnipotent being to be ∞, (that is, contains all the actions that it could) and for it to make something it "cannot" make to be ∞+1, it's still theoretically part of the same system. Otherwise, perhaps the impossible objects are already inside "∞", by definition of it, because infinity already contains ∞+1 technically. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
this is the first time i've seen 2 or more people discuss this argument without at least one of them starting to laugh almost instantly at how terrible it is.
|
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Replacing "god" with anything else makes it pretty clear that this argument fails (but not why). The best possible girlfriend must also exist, since that would make her even better!
Basically the problem is that the God in the argument is a hypothetical concept - it must be, because to avoid circular reasoning we cannot start off by assuming God exists as a real entity. So all properties are hypothetical - if we can reason that our hypothetical God must have a property P, then we really mean that if God existed he would have to have P. Steps 4 and 5 don't actually end up with "therefore, God exists in reality" but "therefore, this hypothetical concept God we are reasoning about would exist in reality". This existence-in-reality property we are talking about is still a hypothetical property of a hypothetical object. So, if God existed, he would have to exist in reality. Not very useful. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
He simply can and cannot, at the same time. And if you say that's impossible, I'll simply mention again that god can do anything - apparently, breaking logic as well. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Rip logic
Edit: if anyone wants to know, I am somewhat religious. I am a Christian and I define my own denomination. Although, I will admit, I do question my faith but I still believe in some type of greater power in the universe, whoever or whatever it may be. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
|
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
Quote:
Honestly though, no beef, I'm sure you're insightful enough to have rationality. As long as the earth isn't 6000 years to you bro. But yeah clearly this logic fails right away because idea is being paralleled to real things. It's kind of interesting to think that this has apparently made people's heads hurt for generations, but I guess at a much earlier time it would have appeared to be a more valid logic. It makes me wonder who else adapted that kind of philosophy. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
omnipotence is problematic to define anyway
even so, there's no evidence that such an entity exists, and besides, it isn't necessary. even if such a being were to exist, how come it exists? if you say that entity needs no explanation, when why not the universe without an omnipotent being, etc? God, in this context, is just a placeholder for human ignorance and our need to give an answer to something. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
|
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
The fatal flaw in Anselm's ontological proof isn't that the idea of God exists in the mind versus God existing in the mind. That's a deliberate misunderstanding of the premise.
The idea that one has is of God existing as a being of which nothing is greater. The actual fatal flaw in Anselm's proof is the claim that something which exists in the mind and reality is "greater" than something which exists only in the mind. Issues around the definition of "greater" aside, there's no objective basis that that greater/better things are both conceivable and exist. One could argue for example, that the idea of having cancer is better than having cancer. The bit you have to take on faith is that one. That "real" things are "greater" in a strict and objective sense than "Theoretical" ones, which is not proven. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Also, on the subject of omniscience and omnipotence.
Omnipotence is logically impossible for the same reasons that were already stated here. When you apply the prefix 'omni' to something, you need only one counterpoint, no matter how absurd, to disprove that status. If you grant that God is simply unimaginably more powerful than we are, you get them into Godlike status without them falling afoul of the logical impossibility. Omniscience is certainly possible, but we as humans should hope nothing has it. Because omniscience, a complete and perfect knowledge of all things, basically removes free will. The assumption of an omniscient God in the christian sense implies one that knows the past present and future. And if God already knows every decision we are going to make, those decisions cease to be free. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
Quote:
I think it's definitely naive to have the assumption that something must be real to be greater (and vice versa in a lot of cases like cancer). The essence of buddhism conveys to people the same kind of feelings one would perhaps get if they put their faith in something existing, but with ideas all being internalized in the mind (for the most part, the more important aspects). But ye it really depends on the context of what it is. |
Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument
tl;dr The whole thing is full of subjective terms and faulty assumptions
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution