Page 1 of 7

### The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:59 pm
This is the direct observation that in math the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem). The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest. Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:18 pm
Cantor’s theorem is only valid if you assume set theory as the foundation for mathematics, but set theory is broken beyond repair which is why mathematicians have abandoned it for a while now.

Naive set theory removed the universal set from its ontology so it can rescue itself from Russel’s paradox.

ZFC has a clever workaround to avoid russel’a paradox, but it too lost the notion of a universal set.

I quite like the idea of the set of “everything” so I reject set theory and ZFC in favour of type theory.

The set of everything does not have subsets.
It has reductions.

Ultimately though. The existence of “the greatest” depends on a simple choice: which theory you assume foundational to mathematics?

If you do settle on set theory then Cantor is the way to refute Anselm.

If you accept type theory as foundational - Anselm’s argument is equivalent to a pantheistic argument.

The greatest is the Universe type.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:49 pm
but Muhammad Ali did exist at one time

-Imp

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:59 pm This is the direct observation that in math the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem). The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest. Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.
St. Anselm Ontological God is logically [re logic only] possible.
As you posited, it is not mathematically possible.
But as I had proven, it is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

Since the ontological God is impossible to be empirical-rationally real, there is no question of 'God exists as real' nor 'God does not exist' because that is a non-starter, i.e. moot.

Why the idea of God emerges onto human consciousness is due to the compulsion of some terrible psychological forces driven by a real existential crisis.
The idea of God exists is only useful for psychological reasons and nothing else.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am St. Anselm Ontological God is logically [re logic only] possible.
The link between logic and reality is realizers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realizability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am As you posited, it is not mathematically possible.
And as I pointed out, it is - when you throw away set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theo ... erse_types
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am But as I had proven, it is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.
So you just rejected The Universe.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:48 am
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am St. Anselm Ontological God is logically [re logic only] possible.
The link between logic and reality is realizers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realizability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am As you posited, it is not mathematically possible.
And as I pointed out, it is - when you throw away set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theo ... erse_types
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am But as I had proven, it is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.
So you just rejected The Universe.
Logik, keep up the good work of being rational. Last week you caught me after half a carton, where I left feeling my mind had been raped, still it was quick and a blast.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:53 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:48 am
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am St. Anselm Ontological God is logically [re logic only] possible.
The link between logic and reality is realizers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realizability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am As you posited, it is not mathematically possible.
And as I pointed out, it is - when you throw away set theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theo ... erse_types
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am But as I had proven, it is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.
So you just rejected The Universe.
Logik, keep up the good work of being rational. Last week you caught me after half a carton, where I left feeling my mind had been raped, still it was quick and a blast.

We are all in the same sinking boat.
Everyone benefits by having smarter people.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:14 am
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:53 amEveryone benefits by having smarter people.
mmm...not so sure I consider you smarter. Perhaps more knowledgeable in some areas..and there I benefit.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:27 am
attofishpi wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:14 am
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:53 amEveryone benefits by having smarter people.
mmm...not so sure I consider you smarter. Perhaps more knowledgeable in some areas..and there I benefit.

If you learned something you became smarter.
If I learned something I became smarter.

Nett win for everyone.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:09 pm
Logik wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:18 pm Cantor’s theorem is only valid if you assume set theory as the foundation for mathematics, but set theory is broken beyond repair which is why mathematicians have abandoned it for a while now.

Naive set theory removed the universal set from its ontology so it can rescue itself from Russel’s paradox.

ZFC has a clever workaround to avoid russel’a paradox, but it too lost the notion of a universal set.
Who is ZFC?
Logik wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:18 pm I quite like the idea of the set of “everything” so I reject set theory and ZFC in favour of type theory.
Does the greatest possible exists in type theory?
Logik wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:18 pm The set of everything does not have subsets.
It has reductions.
What do you mean?
Logik wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 10:18 pm Ultimately though. The existence of “the greatest” depends on a simple choice: which theory you assume foundational to mathematics?

If you do settle on set theory then Cantor is the way to refute Anselm.

If you accept type theory as foundational - Anselm’s argument is equivalent to a pantheistic argument.

The greatest is the Universe type.
Of course God is not the universe since we are persons living in the universe.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:13 pm
Impenitent wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 11:49 pm but Muhammad Ali did exist at one time

-Imp
You are correct. I should have said the greatest imaginable. The greatest exists for any instance at any given time.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:09 pm Who is ZFC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E ... set_theory
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:09 pm Does the greatest possible exists in type theory?
The "greatest possible" is always a conceptual notion. Type theory has a "Universe" type.

You can always conceptualise two universes, but that is "illegal" in type theory because The Universe is a Singleton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern

If you wanted to speak about Universes (plural) you will run into contradictions (because you are violating the grammar and starting assumption of Type Theory - there is only one universe). You will end up exactly like Cantor and exactly like Russel's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_U#Girard's_paradox
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:09 pm What do you mean?
I mean a cat is not a subset of The Universe.. A cat is a type of thing within the set which is The Universe.
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:09 pm Of course God is not the universe since we are persons living in the universe.
OK, but if The Universe is the greatest set (set of everything) you can conceptualise, claiming that "God is not the universe" is either a:
* Contradiction, for (Universe + God) > Universe
OR
* God is a type of thing in the Universe.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 6:33 am
bahman wrote: Sun Jan 06, 2019 9:59 pm This is the direct observation that in math the greatest does not exist (following Cantor's theorem). The ontological proof of God requires the existence of the greatest. Therefore God (defined as the greatest) does not exist.
St. Anselm Ontological God is logically [re logic only] possible.
As you posited, it is not mathematically possible.
But as I had proven, it is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

Since the ontological God is impossible to be empirical-rationally real, there is no question of 'God exists as real' nor 'God does not exist' because that is a non-starter, i.e. moot.

Why the idea of God emerges onto human consciousness is due to the compulsion of some terrible psychological forces driven by a real existential crisis.
The idea of God exists is only useful for psychological reasons and nothing else.
The greatest exists for any instance at any given time. The greatest imaginable, the absolute, does not exist. I had to be more precise.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:21 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:18 pm The greatest exists for any instance at any given time. The greatest imaginable, the absolute, does not exist. I had to be more precise.
Then your mindset is incompatible with naive set theory. In order to avoid Russel's paradox - the "Greatest" (universal set) was discarded.

Because we are bounded rationalists whatever is claimed to be "The Greatest" - I can simply imagine two of them...

If God is the greatest, then two Gods are greater. And If you can imagine one God, you sure can imagine two!

The whole point of Anselm's argument is to establish an ontological upper bound. The line where reality ends and imagination begins.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:27 pm
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:09 pm Who is ZFC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E ... set_theory
Thanks.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:17 pm
bahman wrote: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:09 pm Does the greatest possible exists in type theory?
The "greatest possible" is always a conceptual notion. Type theory has a "Universe" type.

You can always conceptualise two universes, but that is "illegal" in type theory because The Universe is a Singleton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern