Anselm’s ontological argument is wrong

[bahman]

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]

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.

[Skepdick]

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 has nothing do with the argument and everything to do with the conception/notion of "proof".

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.

[Skepdick]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

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]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

U R assuming reality is boundless, and as for your premise it certifies illogic is equally boundless.

[bahman]

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.

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.

[bahman]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof

I am discussing Anselm's argument not Gödel’s one.

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.

But I can conceive that there is no the greatest. Therefore, God does not exist.

All proofs by contradiction follow this format.

Premise -> Contradiction -> Premise is false, therefore negation of premise is true.

I know.

[bahman]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

U R assuming reality is boundless, and as for your premise it certifies illogic is equally boundless.

Ahan, so you could become equal to God one day in the far future. Couldn't you?

[Terrapin Station]

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.

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.

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"?

[bahman]

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.

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.

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"?

Think of goodness.

[attofishpi]

God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

U R assuming reality is boundless, and as for your premise it certifies illogic is equally boundless.

Ahan, so you could become equal to God one day in the far future. Couldn't you?

non sequiture ..as usual.

[Terrapin Station]

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.

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"?

Think of goodness.

Okay, but first, would you say that a "bound" for "flowery" makes sense or not?

[bahman]

U R assuming reality is boundless, and as for your premise it certifies illogic is equally boundless.

Ahan, so you could become equal to God one day in the far future. Couldn't you?

non sequiture ..as usual.

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.

Moreover, I have an argument for the reality being boundless.

[bahman]

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"?

Think of goodness.

Okay, but first, would you say that a "bound" for "flowery" makes sense or not?

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]

Think of goodness.

Okay, but first, would you say that a "bound" for "flowery" makes sense or not?

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.

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?