It's not a good argument. The use word "greatest" is fallacious.. There's no such thing as objective greatness, so there are objective standards of greatness, so there's no reason to think that a being that exists is "greater" than a being that doesn't exist..
@Appletree34 Fair enough. Yet, wouldn't you agree that one only needs "Dawkins level philosophy" to repudiate Anselm's assertion? Hell, a precocious toddler would call bullshit if he heard the ontological argument.
The text in your video is NOT St Anselm's argument -- it is your own made-up strawman. You wrote those words; St. Anselm wrote something quite different, but your intellectual dishonesty prevents you from approaching the actual argument, sadly.
I didn't finish watching the video, but I will assume that you managed to destroy your own strawman, because doing so is very easy.
Ever consider making a video that includes the actual argument? That would be more difficult, don't you think?
@1GodOnlyOne If the text in my video is wrong, what is the correct text? What is the "actual" argument? That god must exist because in order for a being to be perfect, or the greatest, it must exist? This video was made because I have had Anselms argument paraded to me so many times I assumed I must be missing something. A 5 year old can point out the the flaws.
@thatgaybloke In order to point out the flaws in the actual argument, one must first consider the actual argument.
Otherwise, it is a strawman logical fallacy, which is all you have managed to do here, sadly.
Also, do your own research, or pay me to do it for you.
I charge $125.00 per hour (with a 2-hour minimum) to do philosophical research, but finding the actual argument on your own should prove much less expensive. It should take you less than 3 minutes on Google, buddy! lol
There is plenty of proof for God's existence. See the left-hand column of my channel page, as well as my playlist entitled, "PROOF OF GOD" for a tiny sample.
These proofs are logically valid in form, and their premises are all true, so there is no refutation.
@1GodOnlyOne There is so much wrong with this train of thought that it's hard to know where to start. I'll pick out the big bones, since those are easiest to handle.
Premise 1: is a statement that assumes objective morality can only come from (undoubtedly your) god. Says who? I could just as easily say, "without god there would be no gravity". Unless you can prove this statement, it is worthless.
@thatgaybloke I pick the standard English definition.
If you don't know the standard English definition, then you need to do some research in basic English vocabulary. I think third or fourth grade level should suffice. LOL
@1GodOnlyOne Premise 2: States that objective moral values do exist. Really? Do they? Where is your proof for that? Morality seems to have changed quite a bit over recorded human history. Is enslavement of people an objective moral issue? Your god seems to have changed its mind on that - so therefore it must be a subjective moral issue. How, then, do you determine which of the moral judgements from your god are objective and which are subjective?
@1GodOnlyOne "god has alwasy been against slavery" - really? Have you actually read your bible? There are instructions in the bible on how to treat slaves - none of which are "set them free and don't keep any more human beings as slaves in future". As for whether there is objective morality - I don't know. Greater minds than mine have battled with that and lost. If all morality is subjective, then I think that there are some issues that come pretty close to Universal for human beings.
I have read the Bible several times cover to cover, and it is not mine -- it is God's.
There are no instructions in the Bible on how to treat slaves.
Thank you for admitting that you do not know if there are objective moral values or not.
Let me ask you this -- is beating up gay people for entertainment objectively wrong, or is it just as likely to be wrong as it is to be right? I mean, is it really wrong to do so, or is it just a matter of differing opinion?
@thatgaybloke You have failed to provide evidence for your personal belief that there could somehow be any instructions in the Bible on how to treat slaves, so you lose.
(Lazily posting chapter and verse numbers is not valid proof).
@1GodOnlyOne "Exodus 21:20-21: 20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
@1GodOnlyOne Until you have explained to me what you mean by "objective", I can't answer that. Pointing me to a dictionary where the definition of the word objective is (ironically) context dependent, will just result in word games.
@thatgaybloke This is not about unicorns, so there is no need for me to make a direct reply.
Digressing to a ridiculous subject like unicorns from a serious subject like God's existence only demonstrates that your mind is goofy, and does nothing to prove or disprove anything about God. LOL
@1GodOnlyOne Just because you keep saying you've provided irrefutable evidence for premise 1 doesn't make it so. You have done no such thing. You have simply said that only your god can transcend culture and provide an objective view. But even that makes no sense since by being the view held by an intelligent mind it is, by definition, subjective to that intelligence.
@1GodOnlyOne You invite me to review your "proofs" for the existence of god. However, your confidence in their irrefutibility suggests to me that perhaps it is you who should review them. Seriously - you are trotting out prototype arguments that have been dismissed as invalid years, decades, centuries before either you or I were born.
@1GodOnlyOne Oh, no! Not so fast. You are the one making the statement that your god exists. Look up Sagan's "dragon in my garage". The burden of proof lies with you to show that your god exists, not for me to disprove something which is fanciful.
@thatgaybloke Oh, no! Not so fast. You are the one making the statement that God somehow doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with you to show that God somehow doesn't exist, not for me to prove something that is already proven. (See my channel page and playlist "PROOF OF GOD."
Are you actually stating that you don't assert that God doesn't exist???
@1GodOnlyOne I think you have missed the point entirely. You are making the fantastic claims. It is for you to back up those claims. Not for me to disprove them. If the latter, then we come back to unicorns and similar ridiculous notions.
@1GodOnlyOne No - my assertion is that it baffles me because a) it doesn't make sense; b) following on from a) why do people continue to trot out an argument that is clearly flawed? Is your "clearer understanding" caused by inferior intelligence? Without knowing how intelligent you are, I can't answer that. What I can say is that what you consider "clearer understanding" may be nothing of the sort - rather a willingness to believe what you want to believe and not question that belief.
@thatgaybloke Yes, it does make sense, and you have failed to offer any evidence otherwise.
You have failed to provide any evidence of any flaw in St. Anselm's arguemnt, so you lose.
Belief does not enter into it -- I have not asserted any belief, I have merely informed you that I understand the argument, after accepting your assertion that you do not understand it.
I'm studying this for my A levels now; my first point is: this argument is worded in ways that every 3 words I need to switch over to google any words, what is 'contingent'? My second point is, does anyone know any critisms of this argument? And if you would be so kind to add any positive features even if you disagree with it, I've been told that examiners look for the pro's and con's of everything. Cheers P.S. Love the video
The universe doesn't appear to be greater than we can imagine or conceive (watch some of those good ol' Hawking or Sagan documentaries) . . . all that follows from your clip is spun out of your imagination. None of it is greater than can be conceived. So how does any of this relate to Anselm's argument?
One reason this is wrong : Reversed logical analysis - premise 1 defines god and premise 2 allegedly defines existence, But actually it is not the definition, but a characteristic of existence - that is to say - if something exists it is greater than being imagined - but not neccesarily the other way around - the fact of something being greater than can be imagined does not deem it existent. If Existence is a group of unimagined things, not all unimagined things neccesarily exist.
If God is that which nothing greater can be conceived and existing in the mind and existing in reality is greater than existing in the mind alone then God must exist in reality aswel as the mind. It does logically construct an argument or you can dismiss it as wordplay, its elegance is profound either way.
The whole proof seems to be contingent on the first line: "If god is something..." but if god is something, then he already exists thus the rest of the proof is redundant and we're left with the problem of trying to prove the 'if' statement. Which is where we started from.
@messakg123 That's what I keep coming back to. The argument rests on the presupposition of existence. It's rubbish out of the gate - and all the other stuff is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to hoodwink by adding conditions and making exceptions.
@thatgaybloke Hmm yea. Also the way he uses "greater than you imagine" in two different contexts doesn't sit well with me- seems more like a play on words than a logical construct. Can't really put my finger on it though..
And to the guy that posted this u have a great argument as well as a matter of fact.. Gaunilon’s argument against Anselm. Read through this as well as Anselm’s response on the next page. Gaunilon basically rejects the claim that “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” signifies a being that necessarily exists. He substitutes for “that than which nothing greater can be thought” a perfect island. He argues, since I can conceive of a perfect island it must exist. But Anselm arguing
U can't define God as the greatest "conceivable" being because that means then u can conceive him and understand him fully.... But God is "that which NOTHING Greater can be conceived.
of the word god. The second possibility links to my final argument, and that is that the premises can only conclude that an incomprehensible god COULD exist, not that it actually does. Just because the sum total of unknowable truth is unknown does not mean that part of that truth is necessarily about the existence of god. You can only argue that it could be, not that it is. Unless of course god is the sum total of all unknowable truth again, which I already responded to- why call such a t
First, I feel that the two premises can only conclude that the incomprehensible does exist. The first premise is flawed in this respect because it assumes either that all things unknowable are what we would call god, or that god is only a part of the unknowable. The first possibility is easily refutable, as it assumes that the sum total of all inconceivable truth is what we would call 'god,' but if god is defined as truth that is unknowable then this changes the colloquial meaning of the
(1/3) Assuming that you have sufficiently characterized the 'proof,' I'd have to say that I agree with you in that the conclusion doesn't follow from the two premises for at least two reasons.
There are many philosophical proofs that prove the God's existence. You do have Anselm's Ontological Argument but there is Aquinas' Cosmological argument and Aquinas and Paley's Teleological Argument which are slightly simpler to understand. However you are very correct in what you are saying. I would like to say thank you for uploading this video as I am an auditory listener and found it very useful for my revision towards an exam. :)
@tennantrulesno1fan I can't really agree that any of these proposals "prove" the existence of the proponent's god. The flaws in both Cosmological/First Cause and Teleological arguments are well understood. I feel that they all seem to end up in the same spot - "I can't answer so God did it."
God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, he is perfect. For something to be perfect they must also exist, otherwise they are not perfect. God is also necessary and is not contingent. As anselm said in the second part of the argument you cannot compare something such as an egg cup to God because god is necessary and this egg cup is not. If that makes sense? :/
@thatgaybloke i meant this in relation to Anselm's argument. you might not see God as being necessary, but this is what Anselm's argument is based around. you have to think which is greater: a God who can be thought of as not existing? or a God who cannot be thought of as not existing. If we define God it has to be 'the greatest conceivable being' and this definition includes being necessary.
This is how I see it: I cannot imagine anything greater than god. I also can't imagine something greater than what is greater than god. I also can't imagine something greater than that which is greater than what is greater than god...
at some point, you must stop imagining. In order for a being to exist that is greater than god, then it must exist. Therefore, god is only in your head.
When you state what the argument's premises actually mean in a clearer way, it becomes apparent that the argument rests on a meaningless tautology, for the condition of the "ontological perfection of existence" is only mandated by the condition "a god exists" being true, so there is nothing in the argument which mandates the condition of this "ontological perfection" in the case that "a god does not exist." Therefore, there is no contradiction between conceiving of a god and its nonexistence.
It can be a little tricky to see the fallacy in the argument at first, but this , from my understanding, is what it is: When you conceive of something as having some kind of attribute, you are not actually demonstrating those attributes to be true but rather expressing that they would be true in the case the thing actually existed, so by saying a god would have the "ontological perfection" of existence, you are saying, "if a god exists, it has the ontological perfection of existence."
@GlobalHuntMan So if God exists then it must be perfect and since existence is a quality of being perfect then god must exist. The weakness of any argument for the existence of god (e.g. Pascal's Wager, Ontological argument, first cause) explains why "faith" is so important.
There's a second half to Anselm's Ontological Argument. It covers the idea of God being a necessity (non-contingent), which a giant egg cup is not.
I still disagree with the argument, because a being wouldn't have to be perfect in order to be able to create the universe (Immensely powerful? Yes; Perfect? No). Therefore, if such a great being could exist, but not be perfect, Anselm's argument falls flat.
Let us grant the the premise and the logical structure.
What is the conclusion of the argument? It only states a "perfect being" exist.
Perfect: No potential to change.
Being: That which has actuality either materially or in idea.
ergo there is something that exists in a sustained state, what has no potential to change.
All other attributes would indicate a potential to change ergo they can't be attributes of a perfect being. Any definition of god that includes attributes is not perfect.
@Baneheart666 Take a sphere. A "perfect" sphere. Such a thing can only exist as a mathematical concept because any physical sphere - i.e. one that exists - will, at some point be imperfectly smooth if you zoom in close enough. So the idea that something has to exist in order to be perfect is incorrect.
@thatgaybloke I was trying to provide a simpler version of the ontological version. I do not agree with the argument myself, simply because it plays on concepts and words at the same time.
@Baneheart666 "If something is indeed perfect...--existence." But still, there's fallacy. How do you know perfection is even possible? What you imagine and what I imagine are two different Gods. And imagining something does not make it real. Besides, what if my idea of "perfect" involves "perfect" hate for humanity? Does that mean that God exists and, as some part of His nature, he hates humanity?
@doomsdaymonster7 Thats the problem with the ontological argument though. It is a priori, therefore my perception of perfecton or yours do not matter. The idea of something perfect exists in your mind before anyone introduces you with the term "perfect" therefore your subconscious idea of "perfection" does not differ so much than my subconscious idea. Its just like maths. We can count the number of items placed before us but we don't innately possess a word to express how many items there are.
@Baneheart666 also, obviously, in the "hate" and perfection argument; I can imagine a being capable of more than hate but the hate is still one of the components. Ergo, if God exists, he must hate humans as it is one of the components of its existence
@Baneheart666 also, obviously, in the "hate" and perfection argument; I can imagine a being capable of more than hate but the hate is still one of the components. Ergo, if God exists, he must hate humans as it is one of the components of its existence
But being perfect creates an imperfection. If you are perfect and cannot be any greater, then that creates an imperfection because you cannot possibly be any more perfect. Therefore nothing can be perfect. So if nothing is perfect and has no property of perfection, then it doesn't need to exist, which means it doesn't.
I'm getting so mind fucked by this argument, so sorry if it doesn't follow your statement.
Big foot is a being that can survive in the woods in ways beyond our comprehension. The complexity of the woods is beyond our comprehension. The woods exists, therefore Big Foot must also!
The ontological argument erroneously conflates the concept of a God with the real world by use of a semantic trick. The argument goes as follows: Because reality is more complex than our imagination, and we define God as more complex than what we can imagine, God and reality (which are both beyond our total understanding) must share the same characteristic: namely, existence.
I hope this helps. Imagine that God properly defined is Being. All things that exist, therefor, are properties or specific manifestations of modes of being. I am a man because manhood is a property of being or existence. Imagine the greatest possible intelligence, then. While this intelligence may not be manifested, it is nontheless still a property of Being, since it is possible. If God is defined as Being, then the greatest possible intelligence must exist as a characteristic of Being.
@AuxentiusZ If you lined up all the intelligences in the Universe from left to right, starting with Sarah Palin on the left and going through single celled organisms, plants, human beings and then on to whatever more intelligent entities exist, then the right-most entity would be the most intelligent. Would that make the right most intelligence the god of Anselm's Christian doctrine that created the Universe, etc? I very much doubt it.
@thatgaybloke St. Anselm lived and worked during the scholastic period in Christianity, when the faith was characterized as a marriage between philosophy and religion. The right-most intelligence as you refer to it, would only characterize God's mind and personality. The understanding was (and is) that God or Being has any attributes that are possible for "It" to have. It does us well to remember that in this understanding, Being is merely manifesting "it's" qualities in creation.
The idea behind anselm's ontological argument takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum proof. What this means is that he gives you a hypothesis and through his premises, he derives a conclusion that contradicts the hypothesis itself. SInce one cant believe in 2 opposite things at the same time ( Example: its raining outside vs its not raining outside), one of the arguments has to be true and the other must be false. Since he proves his hypothesis to be wrong, therefore, the opposite is right.
This "proof" says that God exists because the definition of God says that God exists basically.
That's like saying the Bible, Quran, and Eightfold Path are all true because they say they are true and something cannot be false if it says it is true.
This kind of logic to "prove" God is as backwards and stupid as someone asking "can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it."
I'm not saying God doesn't exist, just that this argument is bologna.
I have my AS Philosophy exam soon so this will help me in revision.
By definition we say God is greater than which can be conceived. I.e. God is the only 'being' (probably not the right word) that is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
Because God is greater than .... he must exist. This is because only something perfect can exist, ie £5 in real life will always be better than£50 in the imagination. If it did not exist then there would always be something greater that can be conceived.
I do not completely understand the ontological argument itself or why anyone would believe it, but I think i know how someone who did would respond.
An egg container is a physical object with properties that cannot be actually imagined greater than the universe, so it does not necessarily exist. God has a special definition, being that which is greater than all things, so God is not like an egg container, and exists as that which is greater than the universe or anything beyond it.
alot of yall are missing the point....the word God by definition means basically that in which NOTHING greater exists or can even be conceived by the human mind...whoever you think he is is up to you...but the fact is that definition is reserved for 'God'....and i disagree with both a nonexistant God and a God that exists are equal....the God that exists has everything the 'non' has, but he has something extra, which makes him greater, EXISTENCE...
William Lane Craig, Dinesh DeSilva, Ray Comfort all use St Anselm's ontological argument to claim their God (Jesus) trumps every other God.
Go to a comic book store and hear the same argument used: Superman has super strength and can see through ladies clothing. Oh ya? Well Spiderman has spider sense and can spew spiderwebs from his wrists.
World Of Warcraft: My level 50 wizard trumps your level 50 druid.
@kaduisaui "Go to a comic book store and hear the same argument used: Superman has super strength"
The point of this argument is to say imagining a thing with superhuman strength is imaginable therefore its possible its made up. But what God is, is something greater then any imagination can make up therefore it must not be made up therefore it must exist.
@kaduisaui In other words, god is something greater then we have defined it to be thus it has not been imagined thus it cannot be made up thus it cannot not exist.
I think the implications of this version of the argument is the fact that we cannot verify God to be greater then what we imagined it to be, and while this doesn't make it false it doesn't necessarily make it true.
@nazra7 We cannot verify if God exists therefore God might exist? Nope. Just replace God with any other thing and the argument falls flat.
Sorry, I will not pretend God exists based on that assumption. Even if William Lane Craig makes the argument sound good, it is still a very weak argument. Anybody can see the intellectual dishonesty being presented.
@kaduisaui "We cannot verify if God exists therefore God might exist? Nope."
Nope is correct as I never said this. To be able to verify something is a criteria for truth, and seeing that the Bible claims the universe had a beginning and we've verified it does, alone suggests that God possibly exists. And if he possibly exists then he must exist aprioi or else he is not God.
Saying God does not exist is like saying the bachelor is married.
@nazra7 The bachelor is married is a lie and you've equated that to saying God is not real therefore you are calling me a liar. God is nothing but made up fantasy and I don't feel dishonest for saying it. The arguments William Lane Craig uses sound good but they ultimately fail. He says there must be a creator and that creator must be God and God's creator must be God and so on. What is wrong with saying we just don't know yet? William Lane Craig is being dishonest, not me.
@nazra7 The false premise is that the unknown must be God. Why does it have to be Jesus? It may be nothing at all but creationists like William Lane Craig are certain that it is their God and no other.
A timeless spaceless entity needs no creator? How do you know? I guess you can make up the facts as we go along right?
I simply ask what is wrong with not knowing? What creationists are trying to tell atheists is that they DO know and that is false.
@nazra7 1: Yes it is. We digressed from the original video over to William Lane Craig's arguments for a creator. The false premise is that his God is so unimaginable that it must be his God who created everything. He is using Anselm's Ontological Argument.
2: Are you suggesting my question is loaded because I am supposing your God is Jesus? OK then, swap out that God with any other God you like.
3: Yes he is. Intelligent design is creation.
4: Without time there is no beginning? Toke up dude!
@kaduisaui "I simply ask what is wrong with not knowing?"
Nothing. I embrace the fact that we don't know whether or not God exists. My only problem is with people telling me I'm blind and delusional and stupid for believing he does. I don't say that about atheists I know a lot of rationality goes into both sides of the argument.
I just want atheists to know we aren't stupid or delusional. That's all.
@TarnicUS "because we can conceive an all powerful being and twist logic doesn't mean it must be true"
God being all powerful has nothing to do with the argument. Please see my video "God is not ALL Powerful, just very powerful" All God needs is enough power to create all things which doesn't necessarily mean being all powerful
Like I tell every atheist, which they are unable to do, you have to point out the false premise in the argument otherwise nothing you say will change the validity of it
@nazra7 The logic of the premise relies on the fact that God is a being that is greater than anything else we can conceive. We can conceive something all powerful, so that must be God.
Therefore, yes, God is all powerful. If he's just powerful than I can understand something ALL powerful and disprove this logic. Either God is all powerful and your logic is twisted or God is very powerful and your logic is flawed.
@TarnicUS "If he's just powerful than I can understand something ALL powerful and disprove this logic."
I think you're right. That's why I like Dr. Craig's version better. Every comment I have posted has been in defense to Dr Craig's version, not the one in this video. They're both very similar in nature just formulated differently.
this is one of the arguments for Gods existence I never understood. Im an EE, but I do know that Kant made a proved this argument to be false...i think...
the problem with your egg proposition is that of limits.
this is why this argument works only for the definition of the greatest 'BEING' and not much else.
for anything else—an island for instance, as mentioned in anselm's own paper or your egg cup—must have a limit. where as the BEING doesn't, by definition.
an island is still an island, even if its the greatest. it still needs to have land.
needs to be surrounded by water and so on. and these characteristics that define an island will limit its conception from expounding beyond that. and similarly, in the case of an egg cup, it's geometrical shape, its very purpose to hold an egg, limits its conception from being greater than a certain point. for instance, i can imagine an egg cup that has limbs and can have rational thought, and is thereby greater with those attributes from any other egg cup.
yet, now this new version of an egg cup, although greater, can not be considered to be an egg cup. for in the definition of an egg cup there is no mention of limbs or rational thought. to amend this, one could say that we could redefine the definition of an egg cup to include limbs, and thus we would have a more perfect egg cup. yet this redefining would ultimately lead down to Anselm's first definition: something thank which nothing greater can be conceived.
whether you want to call God an egg cup or not is up to you. the fact is you still proved He exists. the egg cup is the greatest, most perfect thing ever, it obviously surpasses time and space, and needs no permission to exist. in our world that is the definition for God. what it all boils down to is the mere fact that its possible for you to imagine Him to exist in reality proves that He exists.
@MrDddlll Ok then, I just imagined a being greater than any god or egg cup, but this being is imperfect. Imperfect yet greater, and also, nonexistent. It both exists and does not exist. But this is solved by simply saying that the human mind cannot comprehend that paradox. But, since I imagined it, it exists, and does not exist, and is imperfect, yet greater. Therefor, god cannot exist because then he would not be greater than this being, and since god is perfect, he cannot BE this being.
This is the first I've heard of this weird concept... You're spot on identifying in the argument that god can be anything, even a giant egg. Since all possibilities can't be true simultaneously, the argument can't be true. However, I think the reason it holds so much fascination is that it kind of works if you don't care about what god is or does. It works if you say it like: If god is whatever created the universe, then god is whatever created the universe, which must necessarily exist.m2c
The main fallacy of the ontological argument is that it assumes if you carefully define an idea that from this definition it may follow that the idea actually exists. It is a proof of existence by definition. However existence can only be proved by observation. Definition: God has the following attribute: Existence. It follows that god exists. Or this is thinly disguise by: God has the following attribute (omnipotent, perfect).. and existence follows from this property of god.
@djsmurfie You stated I was wrong when I defined Anselms argument as "circular." Your reason was that Anselm believed existence was the product of perfection. Would you not agree the perfection that he believed was responsible for existence was the biblical god?
@nosajj12345 I said Anselm thought existence WAS perfection, there is no distinction between these essential properties because they are properties that define God as perfect Being.
I'm afraid I don't understand your second sentence, can you rephrase.
the simplest way to wrap your head around the counter argument is to substitute god for something trivial. say, a perfect ham-sandwich.
since it's "perfect", existing>non-existing. thus, the perfect ham-sandwich must, according to the ontological argument, exist. or the "perfect" cure for cancer.
@pyr666 An eternal ham sandwich such as you describe is arbitrarily defined. But this stems from a confusion of the argument itself: Anselm is asking you to list the properties of the most perfect Being, he hasn’t stipulated what that object is, let alone an inanimate object.
@pyr666 That isn't an ontological argument. I can think of something superior to your sandwich: God. Your idea of perfection isn't the same as what Anselm is arguing: you're conceptualising a sandwich though finite properties; a sandwich's existence is still dependent on something else.
@pyr666 There was nothing subjective in what I wrote.
My objection is applicable. I think it's the case that you don't understand the ontological argument; linguistically I can easily say that, say, my hamburger is the most perfect hamburger I've ever made, but the object in question does not contain any perfection, i.e., it doesn't contain infinite properties that define perfection. Be serious when discussing this argument. Anselm's ontological argument IS flawed because CONT.
"SUPERIOR to your sandwich" is a subjective assessment.
YOU don't understand your own argument. as i said, the perfect sandwhich is the one which no greater can be conceived. can a hamburger greater than your own be conceived?
WTF IS EVERYBODY TALKING ABOUT I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE FUCKING ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
IGhostlyPk 1 week ago
It's not a good argument. The use word "greatest" is fallacious.. There's no such thing as objective greatness, so there are objective standards of greatness, so there's no reason to think that a being that exists is "greater" than a being that doesn't exist..
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 month ago
Hah, the unicornism argument. Nothing to see here but Dawkins level philosophy
Appletree34 1 month ago 3
@Appletree34 Fair enough. Yet, wouldn't you agree that one only needs "Dawkins level philosophy" to repudiate Anselm's assertion? Hell, a precocious toddler would call bullshit if he heard the ontological argument.
JimmyCrlc 1 month ago
I just realized that I have been discussing objectivity with an individual who claims that he doesn't know what the word objective means. Yikes!
Continuing such a conversation would be basically the same as discussing it with a pig, who also doesn't know. Therefore I am done with you.
Feel free to further demonstrate your extreme stupidity by continuing to post by yourself after I leave. LOL
In any case, I won't be reading your ignorant crap anymore -- have a nice life!
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
The text in your video is NOT St Anselm's argument -- it is your own made-up strawman. You wrote those words; St. Anselm wrote something quite different, but your intellectual dishonesty prevents you from approaching the actual argument, sadly.
I didn't finish watching the video, but I will assume that you managed to destroy your own strawman, because doing so is very easy.
Ever consider making a video that includes the actual argument? That would be more difficult, don't you think?
; )
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne If the text in my video is wrong, what is the correct text? What is the "actual" argument? That god must exist because in order for a being to be perfect, or the greatest, it must exist? This video was made because I have had Anselms argument paraded to me so many times I assumed I must be missing something. A 5 year old can point out the the flaws.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke In order to point out the flaws in the actual argument, one must first consider the actual argument.
Otherwise, it is a strawman logical fallacy, which is all you have managed to do here, sadly.
Also, do your own research, or pay me to do it for you.
I charge $125.00 per hour (with a 2-hour minimum) to do philosophical research, but finding the actual argument on your own should prove much less expensive. It should take you less than 3 minutes on Google, buddy! lol
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne "I charge $125 per hour" - has anyone actually paid you? I hope not. They could have Googled this rubbish for free.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke Good point -- now get Googling!
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
There is plenty of proof for God's existence. See the left-hand column of my channel page, as well as my playlist entitled, "PROOF OF GOD" for a tiny sample.
These proofs are logically valid in form, and their premises are all true, so there is no refutation.
CONCLUSION: God certainly exists.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne OK. Let's take the first one of your examples - objective morality.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne There is so much wrong with this train of thought that it's hard to know where to start. I'll pick out the big bones, since those are easiest to handle.
Premise 1: is a statement that assumes objective morality can only come from (undoubtedly your) god. Says who? I could just as easily say, "without god there would be no gravity". Unless you can prove this statement, it is worthless.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke Unless there is a mind that transcends all cultures, morality must be subjective, not objective.
Only God's mind could possibly transcend all cultures.
Therefore, if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne So your definition of what constitutes objectivity already has your god built into it. That's circular reasoning.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke I have not asserted any personal definition, with or without God.
The standard definition of objectivity is good enough for me, and the argument above follows logically from the standard definition.
I can direct you to a good online dictionary, of you need one.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Pick a dictionary definition, then. Just so we are clear.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke I pick the standard English definition.
If you don't know the standard English definition, then you need to do some research in basic English vocabulary. I think third or fourth grade level should suffice. LOL
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Premise 2: States that objective moral values do exist. Really? Do they? Where is your proof for that? Morality seems to have changed quite a bit over recorded human history. Is enslavement of people an objective moral issue? Your god seems to have changed its mind on that - so therefore it must be a subjective moral issue. How, then, do you determine which of the moral judgements from your god are objective and which are subjective?
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke Objective moral values have never changed, only subjective ones have changed.
God has always been against slavery -- that has never changed.
All of God's moral judgments are objective, but all of yours are subjective.
Are you actually asserting that there are no objective moral values, or have I misunderstood you?
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne "god has alwasy been against slavery" - really? Have you actually read your bible? There are instructions in the bible on how to treat slaves - none of which are "set them free and don't keep any more human beings as slaves in future". As for whether there is objective morality - I don't know. Greater minds than mine have battled with that and lost. If all morality is subjective, then I think that there are some issues that come pretty close to Universal for human beings.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke Yes, really! =)
I have read the Bible several times cover to cover, and it is not mine -- it is God's.
There are no instructions in the Bible on how to treat slaves.
Thank you for admitting that you do not know if there are objective moral values or not.
Let me ask you this -- is beating up gay people for entertainment objectively wrong, or is it just as likely to be wrong as it is to be right? I mean, is it really wrong to do so, or is it just a matter of differing opinion?
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Leviticus 25:44-46
Exodus 21:20-21
Ephesians 6:5
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke You have failed to provide evidence for your personal belief that there could somehow be any instructions in the Bible on how to treat slaves, so you lose.
(Lazily posting chapter and verse numbers is not valid proof).
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne "Exodus 21:20-21: 20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Until you have explained to me what you mean by "objective", I can't answer that. Pointing me to a dictionary where the definition of the word objective is (ironically) context dependent, will just result in word games.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke What do you mean by "explained?"
Then why did you ask me to point you to a dictionary?
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Conclusion 3 is invalid because both premise 1 and premise 2, on which it is based, are faulty. By way of an example:
1. Unicorns leave horseshoe-shaped unicorn footprints.
2. These horshoe-shaped footprints are unicorn footprints.
3. Therefore unicorns exist.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke This is not about unicorns, so there is no need for me to make a direct reply.
Digressing to a ridiculous subject like unicorns from a serious subject like God's existence only demonstrates that your mind is goofy, and does nothing to prove or disprove anything about God. LOL
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne OK.
1. Without Thor striking his hammer, there would be no thunder and lightning.
2. Thunder and lightning are real phenomena.
3. Therefore Thor exists.
The existence or otherwise of Thor is no more fanciful than the existence of your god.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke You have failed to provide evidence for premise 1, sadly, so your argument fails.
Conversely, I provided irrefutable evidence for premise 1 of the Moral Argument, so you lose.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Just because you keep saying you've provided irrefutable evidence for premise 1 doesn't make it so. You have done no such thing. You have simply said that only your god can transcend culture and provide an objective view. But even that makes no sense since by being the view held by an intelligent mind it is, by definition, subjective to that intelligence.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne You invite me to review your "proofs" for the existence of god. However, your confidence in their irrefutibility suggests to me that perhaps it is you who should review them. Seriously - you are trotting out prototype arguments that have been dismissed as invalid years, decades, centuries before either you or I were born.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke Your bald and unsupported assertion that the arguments have been dismissed is not a valid refutation of the arguments, so you lose.
The arguments are valid, and they stand until and unless you offer a valid refutation, which you have failed to do.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Oh, no! Not so fast. You are the one making the statement that your god exists. Look up Sagan's "dragon in my garage". The burden of proof lies with you to show that your god exists, not for me to disprove something which is fanciful.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke Oh, no! Not so fast. You are the one making the statement that God somehow doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with you to show that God somehow doesn't exist, not for me to prove something that is already proven. (See my channel page and playlist "PROOF OF GOD."
Are you actually stating that you don't assert that God doesn't exist???
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I think you have missed the point entirely. You are making the fantastic claims. It is for you to back up those claims. Not for me to disprove them. If the latter, then we come back to unicorns and similar ridiculous notions.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
I could explain how it's logical, but would you accept the explanation, or even comprehend the explanation? I doubt it.
Not only does the explainer need intelligence, but also the audience needs intelligence, in order for an explanation to take root.
I could explain a lot of things to a pig, and he would not understand any of them.
Does the pig's lack of understanding invalidate the explanations? No.
Does your lack of understanding invalidate the explanation or the argument? Obviously not.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne Ah, I see. I'm not intelligent enough to understand - whereas you and your enlightened brethren are.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke That's not my assertion -- it's yours.
Here's a direct quote from your description box, above:
"Anselm's "logical" argument for the existence of God. In a nutshell - it baffles me."
Funny, it doesn't baffle me and my "enlightened brethren."
Is your bafflement caused by superior intelligence?
Is our clearer understanding caused by inferior intelligence? I doubt it.
Begin to think.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne No - my assertion is that it baffles me because a) it doesn't make sense; b) following on from a) why do people continue to trot out an argument that is clearly flawed? Is your "clearer understanding" caused by inferior intelligence? Without knowing how intelligent you are, I can't answer that. What I can say is that what you consider "clearer understanding" may be nothing of the sort - rather a willingness to believe what you want to believe and not question that belief.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke Yes, it does make sense, and you have failed to offer any evidence otherwise.
You have failed to provide any evidence of any flaw in St. Anselm's arguemnt, so you lose.
Belief does not enter into it -- I have not asserted any belief, I have merely informed you that I understand the argument, after accepting your assertion that you do not understand it.
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne If someone told me that 1+1=5, I wouldn't understand that either. Because it doesn't make sense.
thatgaybloke 3 months ago
@thatgaybloke I understand it.
In fact, in order to know that it is false, I must first understand it.
You really don't understand the statement 1+1=5???
Do you understand the statement 1+1=2?
I understand both statements -- one is false, and the other is true, but I understand both of them.
The pig understands neither statement -- are you actually telling me that you only understand one of these two statements??? LOL
1GodOnlyOne 3 months ago
ALL CLAIMS EVER, SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL, ARE BASED OFF ASSUMPTION> that being said. this is just a series of stements. where is the argument?
bodhidharma78 3 months ago
I'm studying this for my A levels now; my first point is: this argument is worded in ways that every 3 words I need to switch over to google any words, what is 'contingent'? My second point is, does anyone know any critisms of this argument? And if you would be so kind to add any positive features even if you disagree with it, I've been told that examiners look for the pro's and con's of everything. Cheers P.S. Love the video
Exposetheworld 4 months ago
The universe doesn't appear to be greater than we can imagine or conceive (watch some of those good ol' Hawking or Sagan documentaries) . . . all that follows from your clip is spun out of your imagination. None of it is greater than can be conceived. So how does any of this relate to Anselm's argument?
cashin1951 5 months ago
@cashin1951 that IS anselm's argument in a nutshell. u obviously have never read it
beatsbyjgan 5 months ago
One reason this is wrong : Reversed logical analysis - premise 1 defines god and premise 2 allegedly defines existence, But actually it is not the definition, but a characteristic of existence - that is to say - if something exists it is greater than being imagined - but not neccesarily the other way around - the fact of something being greater than can be imagined does not deem it existent. If Existence is a group of unimagined things, not all unimagined things neccesarily exist.
kwaifeh21 7 months ago
If God is that which nothing greater can be conceived and existing in the mind and existing in reality is greater than existing in the mind alone then God must exist in reality aswel as the mind. It does logically construct an argument or you can dismiss it as wordplay, its elegance is profound either way.
lovebuzz125 7 months ago
The whole proof seems to be contingent on the first line: "If god is something..." but if god is something, then he already exists thus the rest of the proof is redundant and we're left with the problem of trying to prove the 'if' statement. Which is where we started from.
messakg123 8 months ago
@messakg123 That's what I keep coming back to. The argument rests on the presupposition of existence. It's rubbish out of the gate - and all the other stuff is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to hoodwink by adding conditions and making exceptions.
thatgaybloke 8 months ago
@thatgaybloke Hmm yea. Also the way he uses "greater than you imagine" in two different contexts doesn't sit well with me- seems more like a play on words than a logical construct. Can't really put my finger on it though..
messakg123 8 months ago
And to the guy that posted this u have a great argument as well as a matter of fact.. Gaunilon’s argument against Anselm. Read through this as well as Anselm’s response on the next page. Gaunilon basically rejects the claim that “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” signifies a being that necessarily exists. He substitutes for “that than which nothing greater can be thought” a perfect island. He argues, since I can conceive of a perfect island it must exist. But Anselm arguing
RickyVenegas 8 months ago
U can't define God as the greatest "conceivable" being because that means then u can conceive him and understand him fully.... But God is "that which NOTHING Greater can be conceived.
RickyVenegas 8 months ago
Couldn't you just substitute god with like, Spongebob,? He's funnier anyways.
wutwutindawutwut 9 months ago
(3/3)
of the word god. The second possibility links to my final argument, and that is that the premises can only conclude that an incomprehensible god COULD exist, not that it actually does. Just because the sum total of unknowable truth is unknown does not mean that part of that truth is necessarily about the existence of god. You can only argue that it could be, not that it is. Unless of course god is the sum total of all unknowable truth again, which I already responded to- why call such a t
Ihopyourpancakes 9 months ago
(2/3)
First, I feel that the two premises can only conclude that the incomprehensible does exist. The first premise is flawed in this respect because it assumes either that all things unknowable are what we would call god, or that god is only a part of the unknowable. The first possibility is easily refutable, as it assumes that the sum total of all inconceivable truth is what we would call 'god,' but if god is defined as truth that is unknowable then this changes the colloquial meaning of the
Ihopyourpancakes 9 months ago
(1/3) Assuming that you have sufficiently characterized the 'proof,' I'd have to say that I agree with you in that the conclusion doesn't follow from the two premises for at least two reasons.
Ihopyourpancakes 9 months ago
Would a God that could create the universe whilst simultaneously not existing be greater than a god addled by the requirement of existence? ☺
This argument plays way too foot loose and fancy free with concepts.
stramster1 9 months ago
There are many philosophical proofs that prove the God's existence. You do have Anselm's Ontological Argument but there is Aquinas' Cosmological argument and Aquinas and Paley's Teleological Argument which are slightly simpler to understand. However you are very correct in what you are saying. I would like to say thank you for uploading this video as I am an auditory listener and found it very useful for my revision towards an exam. :)
tennantrulesno1fan 9 months ago
@tennantrulesno1fan I can't really agree that any of these proposals "prove" the existence of the proponent's god. The flaws in both Cosmological/First Cause and Teleological arguments are well understood. I feel that they all seem to end up in the same spot - "I can't answer so God did it."
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
God is defined as the greatest conceivable being, he is perfect. For something to be perfect they must also exist, otherwise they are not perfect. God is also necessary and is not contingent. As anselm said in the second part of the argument you cannot compare something such as an egg cup to God because god is necessary and this egg cup is not. If that makes sense? :/
Alliieem94 9 months ago
@Alliieem94 Why is god necessary? I look around and see no necessity.
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
@thatgaybloke i meant this in relation to Anselm's argument. you might not see God as being necessary, but this is what Anselm's argument is based around. you have to think which is greater: a God who can be thought of as not existing? or a God who cannot be thought of as not existing. If we define God it has to be 'the greatest conceivable being' and this definition includes being necessary.
Alliieem94 9 months ago
@Alliieem94 So by starting off with the assumption that something is necessary you come to the conclusion it must exist? Isn't that a bit circular?
thatgaybloke 9 months ago
For a thing to be able to exist it implies that it COULD in fact exist.
however he never tells us why we should grant that "it is possible that God could exist" besides stating that God is great and great things exist.
his argument is therefore,
1)God exists or God doesn't exist
2)God can't not exist (because God is great and great things exists)
therefore, God exists
His conclusion is hidden in the premises.
"God exists because great things can't not exist."
bobthefishmonger 9 months ago
1. I define reality as "greater than imagination"
2. I define God as "greater than imagination"
3. Therefore God is reality and this is true
Now let's say this.
1. I define 1 as cero
2. Therefore 1 = 0 and this is true.
Congratulations, you have just demonstrated that you have the defining capacity of an amoeba!
AndrusPr8 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You do not understand it, because it is BS.
You are wasting your time thinking about this.
VonVladimierVoltar 10 months ago
"it's greater to exist in reality than just in the mind"
What exists in the mind is a concept (of God). Concepts cannot exist in reality.
And what does "greater" mean?
RPFS2008 10 months ago
This is how I see it: I cannot imagine anything greater than god. I also can't imagine something greater than what is greater than god. I also can't imagine something greater than that which is greater than what is greater than god...
at some point, you must stop imagining. In order for a being to exist that is greater than god, then it must exist. Therefore, god is only in your head.
FindingEudaimonia 10 months ago
God is, thus, an eggcup.
KayTeeDolly 10 months ago
When you state what the argument's premises actually mean in a clearer way, it becomes apparent that the argument rests on a meaningless tautology, for the condition of the "ontological perfection of existence" is only mandated by the condition "a god exists" being true, so there is nothing in the argument which mandates the condition of this "ontological perfection" in the case that "a god does not exist." Therefore, there is no contradiction between conceiving of a god and its nonexistence.
GlobalHuntMan 1 year ago
It can be a little tricky to see the fallacy in the argument at first, but this , from my understanding, is what it is: When you conceive of something as having some kind of attribute, you are not actually demonstrating those attributes to be true but rather expressing that they would be true in the case the thing actually existed, so by saying a god would have the "ontological perfection" of existence, you are saying, "if a god exists, it has the ontological perfection of existence."
GlobalHuntMan 1 year ago
@GlobalHuntMan So if God exists then it must be perfect and since existence is a quality of being perfect then god must exist. The weakness of any argument for the existence of god (e.g. Pascal's Wager, Ontological argument, first cause) explains why "faith" is so important.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@thatgaybloke
There's a second half to Anselm's Ontological Argument. It covers the idea of God being a necessity (non-contingent), which a giant egg cup is not.
I still disagree with the argument, because a being wouldn't have to be perfect in order to be able to create the universe (Immensely powerful? Yes; Perfect? No). Therefore, if such a great being could exist, but not be perfect, Anselm's argument falls flat.
oneNonBeliever 1 year ago
Let us grant the the premise and the logical structure.
What is the conclusion of the argument? It only states a "perfect being" exist.
Perfect: No potential to change.
Being: That which has actuality either materially or in idea.
ergo there is something that exists in a sustained state, what has no potential to change.
All other attributes would indicate a potential to change ergo they can't be attributes of a perfect being. Any definition of god that includes attributes is not perfect.
wjpitcher 1 year ago
the terms "greater, or perfect" are subjective inventions of man. The entire arguement rests on this flaw.
hamsalad1361 1 year ago
God is defined as: that than which nothing greater can be thought of.
If something is indeed perfect, then it must have existence.
If it does not have the property of existence, then it cannot be perfect.
Therefore, it follows that the Christian God does exist. I hope this is more coherent :)
Baneheart666 1 year ago
@Baneheart666 Take a sphere. A "perfect" sphere. Such a thing can only exist as a mathematical concept because any physical sphere - i.e. one that exists - will, at some point be imperfectly smooth if you zoom in close enough. So the idea that something has to exist in order to be perfect is incorrect.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago 4
@thatgaybloke I was trying to provide a simpler version of the ontological version. I do not agree with the argument myself, simply because it plays on concepts and words at the same time.
Baneheart666 1 year ago
@thatgaybloke Furthermore, it is arguable that a perfect anything can indeed exist, I argue that something, to be perfect, cannot exist
oliviernovel 7 months ago
@Baneheart666 "If something is indeed perfect...--existence." But still, there's fallacy. How do you know perfection is even possible? What you imagine and what I imagine are two different Gods. And imagining something does not make it real. Besides, what if my idea of "perfect" involves "perfect" hate for humanity? Does that mean that God exists and, as some part of His nature, he hates humanity?
doomsdaymonster7 11 months ago
@doomsdaymonster7 Thats the problem with the ontological argument though. It is a priori, therefore my perception of perfecton or yours do not matter. The idea of something perfect exists in your mind before anyone introduces you with the term "perfect" therefore your subconscious idea of "perfection" does not differ so much than my subconscious idea. Its just like maths. We can count the number of items placed before us but we don't innately possess a word to express how many items there are.
Baneheart666 11 months ago
@Baneheart666 Aaah...that comment made my head hurt lol I see your reasoning.My book doesn't clarify the two sides of the argument too well.
doomsdaymonster7 11 months ago
@doomsdaymonster7 Some stuff are kinda hard to explain with words, and youtube doesn't give us enough space to work on :P
Baneheart666 11 months ago
@Baneheart666 also, obviously, in the "hate" and perfection argument; I can imagine a being capable of more than hate but the hate is still one of the components. Ergo, if God exists, he must hate humans as it is one of the components of its existence
doomsdaymonster7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Baneheart666 also, obviously, in the "hate" and perfection argument; I can imagine a being capable of more than hate but the hate is still one of the components. Ergo, if God exists, he must hate humans as it is one of the components of its existence
doomsdaymonster7 11 months ago
@Baneheart666
But being perfect creates an imperfection. If you are perfect and cannot be any greater, then that creates an imperfection because you cannot possibly be any more perfect. Therefore nothing can be perfect. So if nothing is perfect and has no property of perfection, then it doesn't need to exist, which means it doesn't.
I'm getting so mind fucked by this argument, so sorry if it doesn't follow your statement.
HarrisC16 4 months ago
Big foot is a being that can survive in the woods in ways beyond our comprehension. The complexity of the woods is beyond our comprehension. The woods exists, therefore Big Foot must also!
Ataensic 1 year ago
The ontological argument erroneously conflates the concept of a God with the real world by use of a semantic trick. The argument goes as follows: Because reality is more complex than our imagination, and we define God as more complex than what we can imagine, God and reality (which are both beyond our total understanding) must share the same characteristic: namely, existence.
Ataensic 1 year ago
I hope this helps. Imagine that God properly defined is Being. All things that exist, therefor, are properties or specific manifestations of modes of being. I am a man because manhood is a property of being or existence. Imagine the greatest possible intelligence, then. While this intelligence may not be manifested, it is nontheless still a property of Being, since it is possible. If God is defined as Being, then the greatest possible intelligence must exist as a characteristic of Being.
AuxentiusZ 1 year ago
@AuxentiusZ If you lined up all the intelligences in the Universe from left to right, starting with Sarah Palin on the left and going through single celled organisms, plants, human beings and then on to whatever more intelligent entities exist, then the right-most entity would be the most intelligent. Would that make the right most intelligence the god of Anselm's Christian doctrine that created the Universe, etc? I very much doubt it.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@thatgaybloke St. Anselm lived and worked during the scholastic period in Christianity, when the faith was characterized as a marriage between philosophy and religion. The right-most intelligence as you refer to it, would only characterize God's mind and personality. The understanding was (and is) that God or Being has any attributes that are possible for "It" to have. It does us well to remember that in this understanding, Being is merely manifesting "it's" qualities in creation.
AuxentiusZ 1 year ago
@AuxentiusZ Isn't that argumenth through analogy?
Baneheart666 1 year ago
What's the problem? The weakness in his proposition is the first word - "If"..., i.e., his definition of god is less than acceptable.
andersoncouncilpf 1 year ago
The idea behind anselm's ontological argument takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum proof. What this means is that he gives you a hypothesis and through his premises, he derives a conclusion that contradicts the hypothesis itself. SInce one cant believe in 2 opposite things at the same time ( Example: its raining outside vs its not raining outside), one of the arguments has to be true and the other must be false. Since he proves his hypothesis to be wrong, therefore, the opposite is right.
Papacha0 1 year ago
This "proof" says that God exists because the definition of God says that God exists basically.
That's like saying the Bible, Quran, and Eightfold Path are all true because they say they are true and something cannot be false if it says it is true.
This kind of logic to "prove" God is as backwards and stupid as someone asking "can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it."
I'm not saying God doesn't exist, just that this argument is bologna.
TarnicUS 1 year ago
I have my AS Philosophy exam soon so this will help me in revision.
By definition we say God is greater than which can be conceived. I.e. God is the only 'being' (probably not the right word) that is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent.
Because God is greater than .... he must exist. This is because only something perfect can exist, ie £5 in real life will always be better than£50 in the imagination. If it did not exist then there would always be something greater that can be conceived.
TeddiahWatkins 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So I am not allowed to simplify Wiliiam Lane Craig's explanation? He says if the perfect God can possibly exist then it is his God that must exist.
My question still stands loaded or not: Is Jesus the one?
Intelligent design IS creation. It's easy. God made everything. Deny it all you like but Intelligent design is creation.
The last bit about time isn't worth commenting on anymore.
kaduisaui 1 year ago
I do not completely understand the ontological argument itself or why anyone would believe it, but I think i know how someone who did would respond.
An egg container is a physical object with properties that cannot be actually imagined greater than the universe, so it does not necessarily exist. God has a special definition, being that which is greater than all things, so God is not like an egg container, and exists as that which is greater than the universe or anything beyond it.
NewPuritan07 1 year ago
alot of yall are missing the point....the word God by definition means basically that in which NOTHING greater exists or can even be conceived by the human mind...whoever you think he is is up to you...but the fact is that definition is reserved for 'God'....and i disagree with both a nonexistant God and a God that exists are equal....the God that exists has everything the 'non' has, but he has something extra, which makes him greater, EXISTENCE...
MrDddlll 1 year ago
William Lane Craig, Dinesh DeSilva, Ray Comfort all use St Anselm's ontological argument to claim their God (Jesus) trumps every other God.
Go to a comic book store and hear the same argument used: Superman has super strength and can see through ladies clothing. Oh ya? Well Spiderman has spider sense and can spew spiderwebs from his wrists.
World Of Warcraft: My level 50 wizard trumps your level 50 druid.
Pokemon: My Charizard trumps your Pikachu.
Fantasy is as fantasy does...
kaduisaui 1 year ago 11
@kaduisaui LOL - exactly. Who would win in a battle between Alien and the Daleks?
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@thatgaybloke Definitely the Daleks. Aliens will obey or be EXTERMINATED!
kaduisaui 1 year ago
@thatgaybloke OK then, what about "Q" from Star Trek VS Jesus and all the canonized saints?
kaduisaui 1 year ago
@thatgaybloke
Dalek!
wjpitcher 1 year ago
@wjpitcher Definitely. The Aliens would be toast.
thatgaybloke 1 year ago
@kaduisaui "Go to a comic book store and hear the same argument used: Superman has super strength"
The point of this argument is to say imagining a thing with superhuman strength is imaginable therefore its possible its made up. But what God is, is something greater then any imagination can make up therefore it must not be made up therefore it must exist.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 Honestly? Do you agree with what William Lane Craig presents? God is real because he is beyond our imagination?
kaduisaui 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kaduisaui "Honestly? Do you agree with what William Lane Craig presents? God is real because he is beyond our imagination? "
That's not what Dr. Craig presented. I already posted his version of the argument.
nazra7 1 year ago
@kaduisaui In other words, god is something greater then we have defined it to be thus it has not been imagined thus it cannot be made up thus it cannot not exist.
I think the implications of this version of the argument is the fact that we cannot verify God to be greater then what we imagined it to be, and while this doesn't make it false it doesn't necessarily make it true.
I like Dr. Craig's version much better.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 We cannot verify if God exists therefore God might exist? Nope. Just replace God with any other thing and the argument falls flat.
Sorry, I will not pretend God exists based on that assumption. Even if William Lane Craig makes the argument sound good, it is still a very weak argument. Anybody can see the intellectual dishonesty being presented.
kaduisaui 1 year ago
@kaduisaui "We cannot verify if God exists therefore God might exist? Nope."
Nope is correct as I never said this. To be able to verify something is a criteria for truth, and seeing that the Bible claims the universe had a beginning and we've verified it does, alone suggests that God possibly exists. And if he possibly exists then he must exist aprioi or else he is not God.
Saying God does not exist is like saying the bachelor is married.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 The bachelor is married is a lie and you've equated that to saying God is not real therefore you are calling me a liar. God is nothing but made up fantasy and I don't feel dishonest for saying it. The arguments William Lane Craig uses sound good but they ultimately fail. He says there must be a creator and that creator must be God and God's creator must be God and so on. What is wrong with saying we just don't know yet? William Lane Craig is being dishonest, not me.
kaduisaui 1 year ago
@kaduisaui "God is nothing but made up fantasy"
You still have no argument. If you can't point out the false premise your claim is useless.
"He says there must be a creator and that creator must be God and God's creator must be God and so on.
A timeless spaceless entity needs no creator.
Again you HAVE to point out the false premise and you have yet to do so.
"What is wrong with saying we just don't know yet?"
You should ask yourself that. Thats what we're trying to tell Atheists.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 The false premise is that the unknown must be God. Why does it have to be Jesus? It may be nothing at all but creationists like William Lane Craig are certain that it is their God and no other.
A timeless spaceless entity needs no creator? How do you know? I guess you can make up the facts as we go along right?
I simply ask what is wrong with not knowing? What creationists are trying to tell atheists is that they DO know and that is false.
kaduisaui 1 year ago
@kaduisaui "The false premise is that the unknown must be God."
I'm sorry sir but that's not a premise of the argument.
"Why does it have to be Jesus?"
That's a loaded question...
"It may be nothing at all but creationists like William Lane Craig"
He's not a creationist. He takes an agnostic stance like me on that sort of issue.
"A timeless spaceless entity needs no creator? How do you know?"
Well, because without time there is no beginning.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 1: Yes it is. We digressed from the original video over to William Lane Craig's arguments for a creator. The false premise is that his God is so unimaginable that it must be his God who created everything. He is using Anselm's Ontological Argument.
2: Are you suggesting my question is loaded because I am supposing your God is Jesus? OK then, swap out that God with any other God you like.
3: Yes he is. Intelligent design is creation.
4: Without time there is no beginning? Toke up dude!
kaduisaui 1 year ago
@kaduisaui "Yes it is"
Kadui I'm sorry but it isn't. I already listed Dr. Craig's premises' and not one of them states anything about God being unimaginable.
"my question is loaded because I am supposing your God is Jesus?"
No, I said that because its very difficult to answer that question in a 500 character limit box.
"Intelligent design is creation."
No it isn't. Intelligent design addresses how the world is not how it came to be.
"Without time there is no beginning?"
Not in nature.
nazra7 1 year ago
@kaduisaui "I simply ask what is wrong with not knowing?"
Nothing. I embrace the fact that we don't know whether or not God exists. My only problem is with people telling me I'm blind and delusional and stupid for believing he does. I don't say that about atheists I know a lot of rationality goes into both sides of the argument.
I just want atheists to know we aren't stupid or delusional. That's all.
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 No... in this case: God either exists and he is God because obviously he exists and is all powerful OR God doesn't exist.
Just because we can conceive an all powerful being and twist logic doesn't mean it must be true.
TarnicUS 1 year ago
@TarnicUS "because we can conceive an all powerful being and twist logic doesn't mean it must be true"
God being all powerful has nothing to do with the argument. Please see my video "God is not ALL Powerful, just very powerful" All God needs is enough power to create all things which doesn't necessarily mean being all powerful
Like I tell every atheist, which they are unable to do, you have to point out the false premise in the argument otherwise nothing you say will change the validity of it
nazra7 1 year ago
@nazra7 The logic of the premise relies on the fact that God is a being that is greater than anything else we can conceive. We can conceive something all powerful, so that must be God.
Therefore, yes, God is all powerful. If he's just powerful than I can understand something ALL powerful and disprove this logic. Either God is all powerful and your logic is twisted or God is very powerful and your logic is flawed.
TarnicUS 1 year ago
@TarnicUS "If he's just powerful than I can understand something ALL powerful and disprove this logic."
I think you're right. That's why I like Dr. Craig's version better. Every comment I have posted has been in defense to Dr Craig's version, not the one in this video. They're both very similar in nature just formulated differently.
nazra7 1 year ago
@kaduisaui Dr craig's version simplified:
1. A maximally great entity possibly exists.
2. If a maximally great entity possibly exists, then it exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great entity exists in some possible world then it exists in all possible worlds or else it is not maximally great.
4. If a maximally great entity exists in all possible worlds then it exists.
Therefore, a maximally great entity exists.
nazra7 1 year ago
All the argument means is that we can't imagine a perfect being
takilatime 1 year ago
The problem with this argument is the first four words. If you're going to assume that much, then it really doesn't matter what else follows.
God cannot be assumed to be something as a given in an argument for the existence of god.
Philosophy is great for keeping your brain facile, but don't expect it to have any answers. It's just idea-play.
BenjaminTLaing 1 year ago
this is one of the arguments for Gods existence I never understood. Im an EE, but I do know that Kant made a proved this argument to be false...i think...
ialvarez357 1 year ago
the problem with your egg proposition is that of limits.
this is why this argument works only for the definition of the greatest 'BEING' and not much else.
for anything else—an island for instance, as mentioned in anselm's own paper or your egg cup—must have a limit. where as the BEING doesn't, by definition.
an island is still an island, even if its the greatest. it still needs to have land.
faran1963 1 year ago
needs to be surrounded by water and so on. and these characteristics that define an island will limit its conception from expounding beyond that. and similarly, in the case of an egg cup, it's geometrical shape, its very purpose to hold an egg, limits its conception from being greater than a certain point. for instance, i can imagine an egg cup that has limbs and can have rational thought, and is thereby greater with those attributes from any other egg cup.
faran1963 1 year ago
yet, now this new version of an egg cup, although greater, can not be considered to be an egg cup. for in the definition of an egg cup there is no mention of limbs or rational thought. to amend this, one could say that we could redefine the definition of an egg cup to include limbs, and thus we would have a more perfect egg cup. yet this redefining would ultimately lead down to Anselm's first definition: something thank which nothing greater can be conceived.
faran1963 1 year ago
whether you want to call God an egg cup or not is up to you. the fact is you still proved He exists. the egg cup is the greatest, most perfect thing ever, it obviously surpasses time and space, and needs no permission to exist. in our world that is the definition for God. what it all boils down to is the mere fact that its possible for you to imagine Him to exist in reality proves that He exists.
MrDddlll 1 year ago
@MrDddlll Ok then, I just imagined a being greater than any god or egg cup, but this being is imperfect. Imperfect yet greater, and also, nonexistent. It both exists and does not exist. But this is solved by simply saying that the human mind cannot comprehend that paradox. But, since I imagined it, it exists, and does not exist, and is imperfect, yet greater. Therefor, god cannot exist because then he would not be greater than this being, and since god is perfect, he cannot BE this being.
lupischuckle 1 year ago
This is the first I've heard of this weird concept... You're spot on identifying in the argument that god can be anything, even a giant egg. Since all possibilities can't be true simultaneously, the argument can't be true. However, I think the reason it holds so much fascination is that it kind of works if you don't care about what god is or does. It works if you say it like: If god is whatever created the universe, then god is whatever created the universe, which must necessarily exist.m2c
drzoidbergsocal 1 year ago
The main fallacy of the ontological argument is that it assumes if you carefully define an idea that from this definition it may follow that the idea actually exists. It is a proof of existence by definition. However existence can only be proved by observation. Definition: God has the following attribute: Existence. It follows that god exists. Or this is thinly disguise by: God has the following attribute (omnipotent, perfect).. and existence follows from this property of god.
bhigr 1 year ago
This argument is entirely pointless because it doesn't even define what "greater" means. Existence is greater than nonexistence? In what context?
Culiccidae 1 year ago
Anselms ontological argument for God is the classic circular agrument. Understanable why many Christians would feel comfortable with it LOL
nosajj12345 1 year ago
@nosajj12345 It's not a circular argument at all, it fails because Anselm assumes existence is a perfection, that it is a property of perfection.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie And what is Anselm's source for this perfection?
nosajj12345 1 year ago
@nosajj12345 Rephrase the question please.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie You stated I was wrong when I defined Anselms argument as "circular." Your reason was that Anselm believed existence was the product of perfection. Would you not agree the perfection that he believed was responsible for existence was the biblical god?
nosajj12345 1 year ago
@nosajj12345 I said Anselm thought existence WAS perfection, there is no distinction between these essential properties because they are properties that define God as perfect Being.
I'm afraid I don't understand your second sentence, can you rephrase.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
the simplest way to wrap your head around the counter argument is to substitute god for something trivial. say, a perfect ham-sandwich.
since it's "perfect", existing>non-existing. thus, the perfect ham-sandwich must, according to the ontological argument, exist. or the "perfect" cure for cancer.
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666
and it of course assumes that "god" is a coherent concept. go talk to an ignostic and you'll know what i mean.
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 Wrong. A ham sandwich isn't perfect because the properties that define it are finite.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie
then it would be an infinite ham sandwhich.
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 An eternal ham sandwich such as you describe is arbitrarily defined. But this stems from a confusion of the argument itself: Anselm is asking you to list the properties of the most perfect Being, he hasn’t stipulated what that object is, let alone an inanimate object.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie
you fail to understand that you're trying to define something into existing. which makes this nothing more than a word game.
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 He's not defining anything into existence, he's simply discovering God a priori.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie
then lets go back to the perfect sandwhich, i was being facetious with the infinite sandwhich thing. i'll even put it in the ontological form :D
-the perfect sandwhich is , by definition, a sandwhich of which no greater can be concieved.
-an existing sandwhich is greater than a non-existent sandwhich
-if it does no exist, then it is not true that no greater sandwich can be conceived.
-therefore, the perfect sandwhich must exist.
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666
just like the god the argument supposedly supports, i haven't given the sandwhich any attributes beyond its logical necessity to exist.
god being a completely ambiguous concept makes these shenanigans more palatable.
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 That isn't an ontological argument. I can think of something superior to your sandwich: God. Your idea of perfection isn't the same as what Anselm is arguing: you're conceptualising a sandwich though finite properties; a sandwich's existence is still dependent on something else.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie
the subjectivity of your value judgement aside...
unless god is a sandwhich (now THAT is a god i'd want inside me :P) you're objecting isn't applicable.
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 There was nothing subjective in what I wrote.
My objection is applicable. I think it's the case that you don't understand the ontological argument; linguistically I can easily say that, say, my hamburger is the most perfect hamburger I've ever made, but the object in question does not contain any perfection, i.e., it doesn't contain infinite properties that define perfection. Be serious when discussing this argument. Anselm's ontological argument IS flawed because CONT.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie
"nothing subjective in what i wrote"
"SUPERIOR to your sandwich" is a subjective assessment.
YOU don't understand your own argument. as i said, the perfect sandwhich is the one which no greater can be conceived. can a hamburger greater than your own be conceived?
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 Superior as in God is perfect: perfection isn't subjective.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@pyr666 CONT. existence isn't a perfection, it is an affirmation of something.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie
are you saying an existing object isn't better than a non-existing one?
pyr666 1 year ago
@pyr666 Technically it isn't a perfection, that's why Anselm's argument fails.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
Since when does puny human imagining have anything to do with reality?
rcguy69 1 year ago
Minion's Ontological Argument
1. God is, by definition, something which nothing greater can be conceived
2. Since something which is the greatest exists in the mind, it is subjective
3. Subjectivity does not exist outside the mind
4. Conclusion: God does not exist in reality/ God exists only in the mind.
miniontemple 1 year ago