It is implied St. Anselm's definition refer to an existing God and it is real to the extent of having created the universe and has the ability to listen to and answers prayers. It would be absurd for a theists to define his God as otherwise than the above.Justintruth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:56 amBecause if it is greater not to exist then his proof functions as a proof that god does not exist because else, were he (god) to exist, he would not be as great as a the same god not existing, and since god is that greater than which nothing can be conceived, the existing "god" would not be "god", by definition in virtue of his existing, because you could conceive of a greater namely the god that does not exist .Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 1:47 amI don't see how your 'greater to not exist' is applicable to St. Anselm's argument.Justintruth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:58 am
I think you are missing the point of my objection. The proof turns on being able to determine that it is greater to exist than to not exist. True? For if it is not greater to exist than not to exist, then that being greater than which none can be conceived may not exist. In fact, if it is greater to not exist than to exist then that being greater than which none can be conceived would not exist necessarily.
So which is true: It is greater to exist or it is greater to not exist?
Also it is not possible for a greater God that does not exist.
Yes a definition of God by default is that it is an existing God.The definition of an entity does not normally imply its existence. In the case of god that might be an exception. But that exception needs to be established by the proof. So defining god as a being greater than which no greater can be conceived does not "imply God exists" unless existing is a priori greater than not existing for god.When God is defined [by St. Anselm] as
"a being than which no greater can be conceived".
it implies God exists [Being] as the greatest and the added clause is, there is no other that can be greater than the greatest existing God.
The point is whatever the opposition claim their God to be, St. Anselm's existing God [Being] is always greater than that of whatever the opposition's claims of God.
In addition this ontological God is attributable with all the positive omni-whatever- qualities.
In this case, all "intelligent" theists will eventually end up with the claim of the ontological God so that no other theists will have a one-up position on the other.
If "greater to not exist" is claim, then there is a difficulty of proving a negative do not exist.
The logic functions the same whether there is a claim that it is greater to exist or there is a claim that it is greater not to exist. There are issues with the relationship between logic and existential quantifiers. They operate in strange ways in the proof. Some would argue that these types of proofs are an abuse of logic. But even if they are not, there seems to be an assumption in this proof that existing is greater than non existing. Else that greater than cannot be conceived would be not existing by definition.
Evolution cannot be reduced to the 'one-up' instinct. Your description of that instinct is fair, however, and maybe it is even fair to say that it plays in motivating theologians. But that does not excuse us from trying to understand whether, what those theologians produce, regardless of whether they have produced it based on a motivation to "one up" each other, has a basis for a claim that it is valid.You are not interpreting the meaning of the definition as I do, thus I have to re-quote them.
Yes, St. Anselm's definition is driven by evolution, i.e. the instinctual 'one-up' impulse.
This 'one-up' impulse in hardwired in humans to facilitate survival of the species.
This instinct is very common and very explicit in kindergarten and grade-school playgrounds, where most children are driven with the 'one-up' impulse.
The 'one-up' impulse is not so obvious in adults but the instinctive is still very active in many, such as in sports, business, competitions, exploration, research, ego-maniacs and in this case, theology.
In the case of theology, the one-up instinct has driven theists to the ontological God so that no other theists can have a one-up God over theirs.
However this one-up madness has driven them to an illusory God that is impossible to be real.
Mathematicians also try to one up each other sometimes one presumes. But their output will be true or false independent off the motivations that they have.
I did not say evolution is reduced to the 'one-up' instinct, rather it is an emergence out of the evolutionary process.
If you study the conception of God and its definition, you will note there is a progressive trend in the definition of God.
In the early primitive days, god was recognized mainly to natural entities, such as trees, mountains, seas, etc. Then it progress on a one-up basis with a attribute of being, e.g. the bearded man in the sky.
When theists encounter competition from other theists [or opposition from atheists] then they upped their definition of God to the physio-theological God, the cosmological then to the ontological.
The ontological God is by default a God of absolute-perfection [Descartes] or absolutely-absolute [St. Anselm].Which brings us to your claim "illusory God that is impossible to be real". Clearly, you think the output is not valid. Why do you think that? Perhaps just better to say why you think it is impossible for that greater than which nothing can be conceived to exist?
Note my argument in that thread;
- P1. Absolute perfection is an impossibility to be real
P2. God, imperatively must be absolutely perfect
C. Therefore God is an impossibility to be real.