Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
   
   For those of you too lazy to let you mind think and analyze, in a nutshell;
   
   Something that exists in reality and in the mind is greater than in the mind alone.
   God exists in the mind and in reality as nothing greater can be though of without becoming God.
   Ergo; God exists.
   
   What is the agnostic/atheist response to this ?
   
   

 

Bullshit.

Existing in the mind does not make anything real.

There is no evidence of a god.

 

Lol. Anselm's argument was humorously debunked by replacing "God" with "island." I don't recall the philsopher in question, but hopefully you get the point.

PS

Using 11th-century arguments makes you look uninformed.

 

There are a couple of ways to address this.

There is an issue with the phrase "God exists as an idea in our minds". This is not true. There exists in our mind an idea of God. That idea _is_ not God, it's just an idea, and cannot be expected to have the same features as God. An idea about X existing is not the same as X existing but without existence.

What is greatness? What is the metric by which greatness is measured, and why is that argument any more persuasive than the equivalent argument where "greatness" has been replaced with some other feature?

Why does an object existing make it greater than its non-existing counterpart? This links back to my first objection. What is it about greatness that gets maximised when you exist? It's not that I don't think that you can come up with a definition of greatness, but I think you refer to different kinds of greatness when you talk about God's greatness and when you talk about existing things being greater than non-existing things.

Besides, are we really able to imagine a God, even without adding the line about existing? It requires maximised greatness (with the possible exception of existence) and I'm not sure I would know how to imagine that.

Can we really impose beingness on an idea? When you say that we can imagine the same god but with existence, does that actually mean anything? I would say every time (most times) I imagine an object, I imagine it existing, and that does make them come into existence.

One angle, that has been brought up by others (and sniffed on by me as well) is that if we replace certain words with other words, if the logic was sound, the argument should remain true. If we replace greatness with "being like a unicorn" (and add some features like being visible and real), then by this argument, there should be a real, visible unicorn in front of me. Clearly, neither of us believe that, but you can go through the logic you have presented and see where the argument breaks down. Chances are our objections to the original argument will be very similar.

These are just some objections, I'm sure there are others. It should also be pointed out that many of these are really the same objection, but brought up in the context of the different parts of the argument. I hope the post gave some ideas of possible ways to address the argument though.

 

It's not real if it exists in the mind. It's real if it exists in the mind and in reality.
What the argument is stating is that because by definition is greater than that which can be understood, and that's God exists beyond human comprehension (it's natural reality), and because we are able to comprehend God, that God exists in those conditions.

 

My response as an agnostic is I have no problems with it, as it's a matter of definitions, and as long as the definitions stay consistent the logic is sound, just As Aquina's logic is sound enough to withstand all attempts at disputing it or defeating his arguments. Religious experiences are most likely hardwired into the human brain, as part of its capacity for abstraction and intuition, as many modern studies are increasingly showing, so of course mankind has been experiencing these 'epiphanies' for a long time now, so no need to cast doubt on them for those who have had them. Some people seem to have more than others, some don't have them at all. I see the developments of religion as necessary for creating and maintaining cultures, motivating scientific research, and higher levels of philosophical thought.Empiricism is a philosophy, so is physics, for instance. Math is a language, and very useful at the simpler levels of sciences like physics, but it isn't a science, and it is also increasingly very inadequate when one goes into theoretical science, dependent as it is on circular reasoning.

The processes are themselves subjected to forms of evolution and natural selection, but far more resemble Lamarckism than the biological paths, and eventually the more successful get built on and progress further. Judaism certainly is a major advance over the thousands of years of pagan brutalism, and in my opinion gave rise to Christianity which in turn has surpassed them all. Hegel thought so, too, and so does Hayek, both agnostics, and others as well.

 

you cant believe in science AND believe in the Biblical God.

the two are totally logically mutually exclusive

 

Yes, merely a dishonest tactic used by the stumped less intelligent to impress the even lesser intelligences. Nothing to see here.

 

Nope. It's apples and oranges. Even Thomas Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', would never make that claim.

 

That entire argument is not evidence that any god exists beyond the mind

 

There are a few.

The one that comes to my mind is that greatness does not entail existence. For example, we can conceptualize a perpetual motion machine, the greatest of all machines. But such a machine is in fact impossible. We can conceptualize a perfectly straight line, a perfectly flat plane, a perfectly round sphere. But such things are not actually possible in reality. We can conceptualize of a greatest-of-all batteries that never runs out of charge, but such a thing is impossible. And so on.

In Philosophy of Religion, an Historical Introduction, which I recommend to anyone who wants a neutral rundown of the big arguments, Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski uses a memorable example to illustrate this counterargument: When we're talking about some ultimate Being, it's natural to think that existence is a property of greatness. But what about a terrorist? Most of us would agree that a non-existent terrorist is greater than an existent terrorist, and if we're right about the terrorist how can we be sure we're right about a Being?

In other words, the Ontological argument assumes that existence is a necessary property of greatness. But it does not demonstrate this.

In layman's terms, the counterargument is "The Ontological argument is wishful thinking, expressed as a formal philosophical argument."

The benedictine monk Gaunilo was the one who came up with island counterargument.

 

I studies philosophy in a couple college classes and am of the firm opinion its complete BS, and Philosophy of Religion is BS about bigger BS at least Ethics and some other areas seem to have some value but prattling on about deities and their claims are totally worthless. That's why Philosophical Proof is not Proof of anything science using reason is it gets things done and discovers truths we have yet to find about the real universe out there.

 

If im understanding correctly... the 'greatest' thing that exists is God because God is the greatest, thus God (being whatever the greatest thing that exists is) exists?

 

But you can in no way show god exists in reality.

 

Even other theists weren't fond of this argument. Kant railed against it by observing that existence isn't a predicate. I don't think you will find many people willing to accept an argument that is entirely a priori either.

 

Alfred Ayer has some things of note to say about a priori and reason, and Kant as well. His Language, Truth, and Logic is one of the best books out there. Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy is also a good read. Both make great intros for those who need a place to begin for themselves or their children.

 

I'm still not buying the phrasing "God exists in our minds". An idea of God exists in our minds. It's not God that exists in our minds, it's just a notion, an idea, an image and so forth.

And the argument that it would be greater if it existed applies to the idea, not God. Hence, you're not proving that God exists, you're just proving that the idea of God exists, which you already knew.

 

Well, what if God by definition exists beyond the conceptual and physical abilities of man, yet we have an idea of God, that makes sense.

 

WRONG - because the island metaphor fails because man can easily think of an island greater than anyone else's concept. Case in point; Give me a definition of an island that is so great that nothing can be greater ? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

This doesn't apply to God because God is greater than all other things, by definition, and cannot be improved upon.

 

If he is beyond our concert, then we don't actually have an idea of him.

 

Can god make a rock so big he can not move it?

 

Can man make something so heavy that he cannot lift it ? Yes - so there's no reason God could not do the same.

 

Then this god is not all powerful but simply an alien being. Now we have to discuss what powers he has since he is not omnipotent

 

Ummm, no, you don't get to determine that. The idea that God stops being God if It is unable to lift something It creates is flawed.

 

He stops being omnipotent. That is the definition of the term. That means there are limits to his powers. Now we must define them