Anselm argument and problem within

[bahman]

I think you can imagine the idea of God who is omni-whatever and the creator of the world. Couldn't you? I think that is all he asks.

I can have those words in my brain, but I don't know what 'imagine' means, in this context.

By imagining I mean to have those words in your mind.

I can close my eyes and imagine a red horse - and even this is an extremely partial, unstable 'rendition' in my mind.
To 'imagine' and omni deity....what have I really done?

That is the first step in the argument. To have a concept of God in your mind.

[Iwannaplato]

I think you can imagine the idea of God who is omni-whatever and the creator of the world. Couldn't you? I think that is all he asks.

I can have those words in my brain, but I don't know what 'imagine' means, in this context.

By imagining I mean to have those words in your mind.

I can close my eyes and imagine a red horse - and even this is an extremely partial, unstable 'rendition' in my mind.
To 'imagine' and omni deity....what have I really done?

That is the first step in the argument. To have a concept of God in your mind.

We really think ontology is controlled by words in the mind?
If I think of gibberish is that greater or less than God (for all we know)?
Why wouldn't imagining there is no omni God have some sort of effect/truth?
Before humans we had some other primates? Does this mean that whatever God there was was less amazing, since they probably didn't think of omni concepts?
If there are other smarter than us species, somewhere, this would mean we can't conceive the greatest which smarter minds realize is a deity that doesn't exist - being utterly pure or for some reason we dumb primates can't imagine makes such a deity greater.

Or
This means that the greatest rash exists. One that is everywhere and knows everything.

I can imagine the greatest rash, given your definition of imagine.

It's everywhere and it's omnismart and omnipowerful.

I can imagine it.

It is even better for such a rash to exist in reality so, it does.

So, I'm opening the Church of the Great Rash, with dermatologists (all taking vows not to even try to treat THE GREAT RASH) as the priests.

I mean, the whole thing is silly.

There are bizarre premises tucked into this imagination determines ontology ideas in there.

[bahman]

I can have those words in my brain, but I don't know what 'imagine' means, in this context.

By imagining I mean to have those words in your mind.

I can close my eyes and imagine a red horse - and even this is an extremely partial, unstable 'rendition' in my mind.
To 'imagine' and omni deity....what have I really done?

That is the first step in the argument. To have a concept of God in your mind.

We really think ontology is controlled by words in the mind?

What do you mean?

If I think of gibberish is that greater or less than God (for all we know)?

So what?

Why wouldn't imagining there is no omni God have some sort of effect/truth?

What do you conclude from your imagination? I mean, are you able to complete an ontological argument against God?

Before humans we had some other primates? Does this mean that whatever God there was was less amazing, since they probably didn't think of omni concepts?

Of course, one needs to have a minimum of intellectual capacity to understand and develop an ontological argument. But that does not mean that an ontological argument is invalid if there is no individual with a minimum intellectual capacity.

If there are other smarter than us species, somewhere, this would mean we can't conceive the greatest which smarter minds realize is a deity that doesn't exist - being utterly pure or for some reason we dumb primates can't imagine makes such a deity greater.

No, it does not make the diety greater.

Or
This means that the greatest rash exists. One that is everywhere and knows everything.

I can imagine the greatest rash, given your definition of imagine.

It's everywhere and it's omnismart and omnipowerful.

I can imagine it.

It is even better for such a rash to exist in reality so, it does.

So, I'm opening the Church of the Great Rash, with dermatologists (all taking vows not to even try to treat THE GREAT RASH) as the priests.

I mean, the whole thing is silly.

There are bizarre premises tucked into this imagination determines ontology ideas in there.

If you can imagine such a God, then you have to provide a reason why his argument is wrong or right.

[mickthinks]

So you have to deal with premise (3).

No I don't. Premise 3 says that for some being to be the greatest being imaginable it must exist. This is trivially true but it doesn't do what Anselm claims for it. From Premises 1—3 we get that a god that is only imagined is not the greatest being imaginable, and hence is not God. To which I say "Well, duh!"

I can imagine something greater ...
Can you? I'm not convinced. I have trouble imagining divine potency of any kind. I can happily concede for the purposes if this discussion that omnipotence is infinite potency* but I need to see some pretty rigorous proof that it must be more than uncountably infinite. I can't imagine what extra power over a merely countably-infinitely-omnipotent god a transfinitely-omnipotent god could have.

[bahman]

So you have to deal with premise (3).

No I don't. Premise 3 says that for some being to be the greatest being imaginable it must exist. This is trivially true but it doesn't do what Anselm claims for it. From Premises 1—3 we get that a god that is only imagined is not the greatest being imaginable, and hence is not God.

You have to. It is in this premise that he argues that something that exists in reality and the mind is greater than something that exists only as an idea in the mind.

I can imagine something greater ...
Can you? I'm not convinced. I have trouble imagining divine potency of any kind. I can happily concede for the purposes if this discussion that omnipotence is infinite potency* but I need to see some pretty rigorous proof that it must be more than uncountably infinite. I can't imagine what extra power over a merely countably-infinitely-omnipotent god a transfinitely-omnipotent god could have.

I refer you to Cantor's theory then.

[Iwannaplato]

What do you mean?

That what we imagine determines what is.

If I think of gibberish is that greater or less than God (for all we know)?

So what?

Same as above. Suddenly a deity can be proven because of the vagaries of fallible minds of primates.

What do you conclude from your imagination? I mean, are you able to complete an ontological argument against God?

I don't need to. I don't need to demonstrate that X is false to point out the problems of an argument that claims to prove X is true. Further I'm a theist.

Of course, one needs to have a minimum of intellectual capacity to understand and develop an ontological argument.

Maybe we haven't reached that minimum.

But that does not mean that an ontological argument is invalid if there is no individual with a minimum intellectual capacity.

Sure, but I am trying to put this on a scale. Perhaps we are not at the stage to realize that imagining something means that an even better thing must exist. Perhaps we don't have the advanced enough mind for this. Again, I don't think 'imagining' here has any clear meaning. Then we come up with the rule that if we could imagine something better than it must exist. That strikes me as utterly unjustified.

If there are other smarter than us species, somewhere, this would mean we can't conceive the greatest which smarter minds realize is a deity that doesn't exist - being utterly pure or for some reason we dumb primates can't imagine makes such a deity greater.

No, it does not make the diety greater.

That's what you think, but in 2 million years more advanced minds will realize it trumps your imagination and sense of the greatest conceivable deity. Something vague and fallible - human imagination - is somehow confirming something it doesn't even understand in a very short proof.

Or
This means that the greatest rash exists. One that is everywhere and knows everything.

I can imagine the greatest rash, given your definition of imagine.

It's everywhere and it's omnismart and omnipowerful.

I can imagine it.

It is even better for such a rash to exist in reality so, it does.

So, I'm opening the Church of the Great Rash, with dermatologists (all taking vows not to even try to treat THE GREAT RASH) as the priests.

I mean, the whole thing is silly.

There are bizarre premises tucked into this imagination determines ontology ideas in there.

If you can imagine such a God, then you have to provide a reason why his argument is wrong or right.

I did. I imagined an omniscient/omnipotent rash.

Does it now exist?

And I certainly imagined it. And then I imagined that it would be greater if it existed. Does it now??????

And noun could be put in that argument. Doest his mean that omni cats, dogs, gravel stones, farts, numbers, confusions and so on exist????

[bahman]

What do you mean?

That what we imagine determines what is.

What we imagine determines what it is if we offer a sound argument.

If I think of gibberish is that greater or less than God (for all we know)?

So what?

Same as above. Suddenly a deity can be proven because of the vagaries of fallible minds of primates.

If a fallible mind offers a sound argument then we have to accept it.

What do you conclude from your imagination? I mean, are you able to complete an ontological argument against God?

I don't need to. I don't need to demonstrate that X is false to point out the problems of an argument that claims to prove X is true.

You need to.

Further I'm a theist.

Good for you. Based on what?

Of course, one needs to have a minimum of intellectual capacity to understand and develop an ontological argument.

Maybe we haven't reached that minimum.

I think we reached that minimum.

But that does not mean that an ontological argument is invalid if there is no individual with a minimum intellectual capacity.

Sure, but I am trying to put this on a scale. Perhaps we are not at the stage to realize that imagining something means that an even better thing must exist. Perhaps we don't have the advanced enough mind for this. Again, I don't think 'imagining' here has any clear meaning. Then we come up with the rule that if we could imagine something better than it must exist. That strikes me as utterly unjustified.

So you are suggesting that because perhaps we didn't reach that level of advancement in mind we should stop arguing.

If there are other smarter than us species, somewhere, this would mean we can't conceive the greatest which smarter minds realize is a deity that doesn't exist - being utterly pure or for some reason we dumb primates can't imagine makes such a deity greater.

No, it does not make the diety greater.

That's what you think, but in 2 million years more advanced minds will realize it trumps your imagination and sense of the greatest conceivable deity. Something vague and fallible - human imagination - is somehow confirming something it doesn't even understand in a very short proof.

So, we have to wait two million years? I think the human mind in its current stage has a huge potential.

Or
This means that the greatest rash exists. One that is everywhere and knows everything.

I can imagine the greatest rash, given your definition of imagine.

It's everywhere and it's omnismart and omnipowerful.

I can imagine it.

It is even better for such a rash to exist in reality so, it does.

So, I'm opening the Church of the Great Rash, with dermatologists (all taking vows not to even try to treat THE GREAT RASH) as the priests.

I mean, the whole thing is silly.

There are bizarre premises tucked into this imagination determines ontology ideas in there.

If you can imagine such a God, then you have to provide a reason why his argument is wrong or right.

I did. I imagined an omniscient/omnipotent rash.

Does it now exist?

And I certainly imagined it. And then I imagined that it would be greater if it existed. Does it now??????

And noun could be put in that argument. Doest his mean that omni cats, dogs, gravel stones, farts, numbers, confusions and so on exist????

So you are rightly pointing to the problems of Anselm's argument. That is a good exercise. Don't you think?

[Iwannaplato]

That what we imagine determines what is.

What we imagine determines what it is if we offer a sound argument.

I am questioning hinging ontological conclusions on what we can imagine. I have included descriptions of what happens when we imagine and how flimsy and vague this is. So far you haven't responded to any of that and justified why we should move from the process of imagining to conclusions about things we haven't experienced, especially given other points I make about the types of other conclusions we come up with using this flimsy and vague process. IOW I can't see how a sound argument can be based on this. A sound argument has to have true premises and true implicit premises. I am specifically going after the premises.

*If a fallible mind offers a sound argument then we have to accept it.

A sound argument would have to justify the accuracy of this imagining and how such a flimsy and vague process somehow can reach valid conclusions about what is. So far, no attempt on your part to justify this. You just keep saying it's sound. I am specifically criticizing the premises.

Your response, again and again. It's sound.

Well, great I understood you thought it was sound from be beginning.

What do you conclude from your imagination? I mean, are you able to complete an ontological argument against God?

I don't need to. I don't need to demonstrate that X is false to point out the problems of an argument that claims to prove X is true.

You need to.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of arguments and logic. If someone says there is a God because they had a dream last night, I can point out the problems of that argument and it's lack of soundness. I don't need to prove there is no God.

1) this does not all for, for example, agnostic positions
2) but more importantly and argument can be unsound or invalid without it's conclusion being false.

This is basic stuff.

Good for you. Based on what?

I mentioned that to, hopefully, help you understand that there is no need to even disagree with a conclusion to find an argument unsound. If I want to go into why I can start my own thread.

I think we reached that minimum.

Well, that would be one of the so far unjustified premises in Anselm's ontological argument. If you want to claim it is sound, you need to justify such things. Your gut intuition that we have - which is all we have to go on so far - is not strong enough justification for anyone but you. If you want to claim the argument is sound, that's one of the things you need to demonstrate.

So you are suggesting that because perhaps we didn't reach that level of advancement in mind we should stop arguing.

No, again, I am highlighting implicit and unjustified premises. My disagreeing with the argument doesn't mean people should stop presenting them.

So, we have to wait two million years? I think the human mind in its current stage has a huge potential.

No, again. You needto explain why a flimsy and vague 'imagining' somehow allows us to without even experiencing anything other than the imagining allows us to draw conclusions about ontology.

I was pointing out where your premises and Anselm's are just based on gut guesses.

So you are rightly pointing to the problems of Anselm's argument. That is a good exercise. Don't you think?

So, I am rightly pointing to the problems of Anselm's argument. That's good, don't you think?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here are 5 Formulation of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... tAnsOntArg

Thanks for sharing other versions of the argument. I had a quick look at them and found them interesting to discuss. I, however, do not have time to discuss them all right now. Could we please work on the version that I posted? What is your opinion about my counterargument?

• P1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

PI is contradictory.
What is conceptualized [logical] cannot be imagined [empirical].
Technically, imagining [imaging] is confined to what can be imaged.
The concept of the greatest possible being [merely a thought] cannot be imagined empirically.

In that sense, numbers are empirical possibilities and as you mentioned Cantor's impossibility of 'none greater number can be imagined' thereby God is an impossibility from the Mathematical perspective which of course in in reference to a Mathematical-FSK.

Noted your argument is wholesale from:
https://iep.utm.edu/anselm-ontological-argument

• Introduction: The Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments
  The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument
  The Argument Described
  Gaunilo’s Criticism
  Aquinas’s Criticisms
  Kant’s Criticism: Is Existence a Perfection?
  Anselm’s Second Version of the Ontological Argument
  Modal Versions of the Argument
  References and Further Reading

My inclination is towards Kant's Criticism.

in any case, the article concluded
" .. then all versions of the ontological argument fail".

[Age]

Here there is his argument:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

Okay.

I have a problem with the first premise.

2. God exists as an idea in the mind.

Where is and what is 'the mind', exactly?

Read it that God exists as an idea in the understanding.

3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

What is meant here by 'greater'.

If one imagines of 'a rat', for example, and imagines 'this rat is walking within a spinning wheel', and then comes upon 'this rat walking within a spinning wheel', then the existence of 'this rat', in reality, is not 'greater' than what was previously being imagined only. This is just a different scenario, or just 'a rat in real walking within a spinning wheel'. There is nothing amazing here to be nor get excited about. As there is nothing 'greater' nor 'lesser' than here.

By greater I believe he means better quality.

4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).

This here does not logically follow.

If one is imagining that God is the so-called 'greatest', then there is no thing that one could imagine that is 'greater' than God. However, and for example, if one is imagining that there is some 'great' God, then, obviously, it would be very, very, simple to imagine of some thing 'greater' than 'this' God.

But, again, if one is imagining that God is the 'greatest being' of which there is none 'greater', then one could not imagine of some 'being' 'greater' than 'that' God. However, one could imagine some thing that is 'greater' than 'that' God. But this is just obvious also.

It follows if you accept (3).

5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)

So, if what is being said and claimed here now would be a contradiction, then why was some thing that did not logically follow and was just a contradiction anyway?

What do you mean?

6. Therefore, God exists.

This arguments is not sound, not valid, does not even logically follow, and is completely and utterly nonsensical and absurd.

But as I continually say, and point out using the words and claims from the 'olden days' here, they really will say just about anything, in the hope that it would back up and support their currently held onto beliefs, even though what is said and claimed is Truly illogical and ridiculous.

Where is the problem?

God is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omniprenst,...

If you say so, and if this is what you believe, then this is okay with me.

Although you people would still want to believe somethings are true, prior to obtaining and gaining actual proof for them, I still question you as to why you would even begin to want to do this?

The answer by the way is very revealing, and enlightening.

You have to wait for it.

Let's focus on omnipotent for a moment.

Okay.

If you waited longer then you wouldn't ask the previous question.

That means that God has to be extremely strong, or better to say infinitely strong. However, according to Cantor's theorem, the infinity is not the largest number. In fact, he shows that there is no largest infinity since there is always a number bigger than what you can imagine.

Do you purposely twist and distort words around, to attempt to fool and deceive others, or are you completely oblivious to the fact that you are even doing this?

In other words, are you so fooled and deceived here that even you can still not yet see this?

Now, if you or anyone would like to know where and how the distortion and twisting of words here is taking place, then just let me know and i will inform you.

There is no twist of distortion here.

Therefore, the strongest quality does not exist either. This questions the first premise. Therefore, his argument does not follow.

How could the first premise be questioned?

It is just an idea, or just a definition, only.

There is no claim that there is anything other than just a concept or conceptual idea or definition, alone.

It follows from Cantor's theorem. Like it or not.

Once more you, again, appear to have completely missed and/or misunderstood things here.

[Age]

It has.


So you have to deal with premise (3).


God is the greatest imaginable thing according to Anselm. I can imagine something greater but not the greatest. That is the whole message.

How could you possibly, logically and physically, imagine something greater than the greatest thing?

Maybe if you provide an example of how and/or when you can do this, then I, for one, could accept your claim here. Until then, I wait.

Read Cantor's theorem, please.

Here we can see another prime example of when one claims things but who is completely and utterly incapable of being able to back up and support those claims.

[Age]

I think you can imagine the idea of God who is omni-whatever and the creator of the world. Couldn't you? I think that is all he asks.

I can have those words in my brain, but I don't know what 'imagine' means, in this context.

By imagining I mean to have those words in your mind.

I can close my eyes and imagine a red horse - and even this is an extremely partial, unstable 'rendition' in my mind.
To 'imagine' and omni deity....what have I really done?

That is the first step in the argument. To have a concept of God in your mind.

What we can see here in this post and the one prior to it, people back in the 'olden days' when this was being written had absolutely no clue nor idea of what the Mind is exactly.

Which explains why they were so lost and so confused, back then.

[mickthinks]

Premise 3 says that for some being to be the greatest being imaginable it must exist. This is trivially true but it doesn't do what Anselm claims for it.

It is in this premise that he argues that something that exists in reality and the mind is greater than something that exists only as an idea in the mind.

lol It's like talking to a brick wall!

I refer you to Cantor's theory then.
You can try that, but until you include a reference to the part of Cantor's proof which addresses divine omnipotence, you would be just pissing in the wind, dude!

[bahman]

That what we imagine determines what is.

What we imagine determines what it is if we offer a sound argument.

I am questioning hinging ontological conclusions on what we can imagine. I have included descriptions of what happens when we imagine and how flimsy and vague this is. So far you haven't responded to any of that and justified why we should move from the process of imagining to conclusions about things we haven't experienced, especially given other points I make about the types of other conclusions we come up with using this flimsy and vague process.

Imagination might be false or true. It could lead to an ontological conclusion if one can link the topic of imagination that is true to the ontological conclusion.

IOW I can't see how a sound argument can be based on this. A sound argument has to have true premises and true implicit premises. I am specifically going after the premises.

I agree. A sound argument is valid and it is based on true premises.

Good for you. Based on what?

I mentioned that to, hopefully, help you understand that there is no need to even disagree with a conclusion to find an argument unsound. If I want to go into why I can start my own thread.

OK.

I think we reached that minimum.

Well, that would be one of the so far unjustified premises in Anselm's ontological argument. If you want to claim it is sound, you need to justify such things. Your gut intuition that we have - which is all we have to go on so far - is not strong enough justification for anyone but you. If you want to claim the argument is sound, that's one of the things you need to demonstrate.

I already argued that the first premise is wrong.

So you are suggesting that because perhaps we didn't reach that level of advancement in mind we should stop arguing.

No, again, I am highlighting implicit and unjustified premises. My disagreeing with the argument doesn't mean people should stop presenting them.

OK.

I was pointing out where your premises and Anselm's are just based on gut guesses.

My premise? What is my premise?

So you are rightly pointing to the problems of Anselm's argument. That is a good exercise. Don't you think?

So, I am rightly pointing to the problems of Anselm's argument. That's good, don't you think?

Yes, that is good.

[bahman]

Here are 5 Formulation of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... tAnsOntArg

Thanks for sharing other versions of the argument. I had a quick look at them and found them interesting to discuss. I, however, do not have time to discuss them all right now. Could we please work on the version that I posted? What is your opinion about my counterargument?

• P1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

PI is contradictory.
What is conceptualized [logical] cannot be imagined [empirical].
Technically, imagining [imaging] is confined to what can be imaged.
The concept of the greatest possible being [merely a thought] cannot be imagined empirically.

In that sense, numbers are empirical possibilities and as you mentioned Cantor's impossibility of 'none greater number can be imagined' thereby God is an impossibility from the Mathematical perspective which of course in in reference to a Mathematical-FSK.

Noted your argument is wholesale from:
https://iep.utm.edu/anselm-ontological-argument

• Introduction: The Non-Empirical Nature of the Ontological Arguments
  The Classic Version of the Ontological Argument
  The Argument Described
  Gaunilo’s Criticism
  Aquinas’s Criticisms
  Kant’s Criticism: Is Existence a Perfection?
  Anselm’s Second Version of the Ontological Argument
  Modal Versions of the Argument
  References and Further Reading

My inclination is towards Kant's Criticism.

in any case, the article concluded
" .. then all versions of the ontological argument fail".

Ok, so we are on the same page. I will read the article shortly.