Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Not that I agree with Anselm's argument--it's always struck me as rather stupid instead, but you'd need to explain the connection you're claiming between boundlessness and greatness.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
It has nothing do with the argument and everything to do with the conception/notion of "proof".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:52 pm Not that I agree with Anselm's argument--it's always struck me as rather stupid instead, but you'd need to explain the connection you're claiming between boundlessness and greatness.
It's a proof by contradiction. Is that; or isn't that a valid way of proving things?
If the method is valid then the proof is valid.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof
God, by definition, is that for which no greater can be conceived. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.
All proofs by contradiction follow this format.
Premise -> Contradiction -> Premise is false, therefore negation of premise is true.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
The greatest is a measure for a quality belonging to a being that nobody can have a quality larger than this. In reality, there is no bound for any quality. Therefore, the greatest does not exist.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:52 pm Not that I agree with Anselm's argument--it's always struck me as rather stupid instead, but you'd need to explain the connection you're claiming between boundlessness and greatness.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
I am discussing Anselm's argument not Gödel’s one.
But I can conceive that there is no the greatest. Therefore, God does not exist.
I know.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Ahan, so you could become equal to God one day in the far future. Couldn't you?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:14 pmU R assuming reality is boundless, and as for your premise it certifies illogic is equally boundless.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
It seems, first off, that you're conflating quality and quantity.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:15 pmThe greatest is a measure for a quality belonging to a being that nobody can have a quality larger than this. In reality, there is no bound for any quality. Therefore, the greatest does not exist.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:52 pm Not that I agree with Anselm's argument--it's always struck me as rather stupid instead, but you'd need to explain the connection you're claiming between boundlessness and greatness.
Take a quality like "flowery." What would it mean to have or not have a bound for "flowery"? What would it mean for a quality to be "larger" or "smaller" than "flowery"?
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Think of goodness.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:21 pmIt seems, first off, that you're conflating quality and quantity.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:15 pmThe greatest is a measure for a quality belonging to a being that nobody can have a quality larger than this. In reality, there is no bound for any quality. Therefore, the greatest does not exist.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:52 pm Not that I agree with Anselm's argument--it's always struck me as rather stupid instead, but you'd need to explain the connection you're claiming between boundlessness and greatness.
Take a quality like "flowery." What would it mean to have or not have a bound for "flowery"? What would it mean for a quality to be "larger" or "smaller" than "flowery"?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10001
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
non sequiture ..as usual.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:21 pmAhan, so you could become equal to God one day in the far future. Couldn't you?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:14 pmU R assuming reality is boundless, and as for your premise it certifies illogic is equally boundless.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Okay, but first, would you say that a "bound" for "flowery" makes sense or not?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:25 pmThink of goodness.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:21 pmIt seems, first off, that you're conflating quality and quantity.
Take a quality like "flowery." What would it mean to have or not have a bound for "flowery"? What would it mean for a quality to be "larger" or "smaller" than "flowery"?
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
It is not. If God has a quality that is maximal and the quality greater than that cannot be achieved then you can achieve. Think of the tree of knowledge.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:27 pmnon sequiture ..as usual.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:21 pmAhan, so you could become equal to God one day in the far future. Couldn't you?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:14 pm
U R assuming reality is boundless, and as for your premise it certifies illogic is equally boundless.
Moreover, I have an argument for the reality being boundless.
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
There are some qualities that are binary. Like flowery. A thing is either flower or not. You cannot have a flower that is more flowery than another flower.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:27 pmOkay, but first, would you say that a "bound" for "flowery" makes sense or not?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:25 pmThink of goodness.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:21 pm
It seems, first off, that you're conflating quality and quantity.
Take a quality like "flowery." What would it mean to have or not have a bound for "flowery"? What would it mean for a quality to be "larger" or "smaller" than "flowery"?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong
Okay, so some qualities you'd say have an implied quantification, and "goodness" is an example in your view. How, exactly, would you say that "goodness" is quantified?bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:38 pmThere are some qualities that are binary. Like flowery. A thing is either flower or not. You cannot have a flower that is more flowery than another flower.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:27 pmOkay, but first, would you say that a "bound" for "flowery" makes sense or not?