|
|
#1 |
|
Forum User
|
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?
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,137
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum User
|
Well that was easy. Thread done.
I should have rephrased it to make it less obvious, which is what was done someplace else : I
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Kawaii Desu Ne?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Kawaiian Island~
Age: 27
Posts: 4,130
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Forum User
|
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.
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Last edited by Spenner; 09-6-2013 at 03:21 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
ᅠ
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,538
|
god is dead
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,137
|
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. Last edited by ilikexd; 09-6-2013 at 03:52 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Kawaii Desu Ne?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Kawaiian Island~
Age: 27
Posts: 4,130
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Forum User
|
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.
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 29
Posts: 1,114
|
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.
Last edited by kaiten123; 09-6-2013 at 10:13 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
stepmania archaeologist
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Mrow~
|
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.
__________________
![]() 853 AAAs | 1282 FCs | 316 TPs | 7 FMO AAAs Skype: paperclipgames | Steam: alegiano | Last.fm: Alegiano | Ask.fm: Clippysan | Facebook: LINK Best AAAs: Exciting Hyper Highspeed Star (69), Nous (69), Pure Ruby (68), Heavenly Spores (68), Ambient Angels (66), Within Life (66), Defection (66) Southern Cross (65) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Kawaii Desu Ne?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Kawaiian Island~
Age: 27
Posts: 4,130
|
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. Last edited by reuben_tate; 09-7-2013 at 03:14 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 324
|
That made me laugh, oh god, thx !
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum User
|
You're tellin me
![]() 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.
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
x'); DROP TABLE FFR;--
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,334
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 324
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | |
|
Forum User
|
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.
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|