Anselm argument and problem within

[bahman]

No, That is your thesis, not mine (hence the conditional “if”). I’m just along for the ride.

But accepting the fact that unbound things cannot exist means that God is bounded. Don't you agree? This means that God cannot be the greatest since the greatest quality does not exist according to Cantor's theorem.

[mickthinks]

I think you are misusing the words “unbound”, “thing”, “quality”, and “exist”. Do mathematical sets exist? Are they things? And what do qualities have to do with Cantor?

[Age]

I have a problem with the first premise.


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


By greater I believe he means better quality.


It follows if you accept (3).


What do you mean?


Where is the problem?


You have to wait for it.


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


There is no twist of distortion here.


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

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

Oh, age I am so glad that you didn't ask 1000 more questions.

you are probably glad I did not ask you any questions, but this is just because you have shown your inability to answer them and back up and clarify your different positions here.

[Age]

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!

Same here!

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!

I am linking omnipotence and number. Let me explain it further: To say that God is all-powerful we have to make it clear what we mean by all-powerful or in other words quantify it. The number is essential when we want to quantify something. For example, God can lift a stone that is 1000 Kg. How about 1000,000 Kg stone? How about higher? Etc.

When, and if, you also learn and understand, fully, who and what God is exactly, then you will see and understand just how ridiculous it was to try and link what you are trying to here.

[Age]

To say that God is all-powerful we have to make it clear what we mean by all-powerful or in other words quantify it.

That's not Cantor saying that. It's you. Cantor says nothing about God or omnipotence.

I didn't say that Cantor said that. I am saying that.

And you are being told that what you are saying does not follow, does not link, and/or does not logically work.

But, again, you are free to believe absolutely whatever you like.

For example, God can lift a stone that is 1000 Kg.

Let me help you out here. Assuming God is omnipotent that means there is no stone that God can't lift. That's none as in 0.

How much is the weight of the stone? Infinity? Larger than infinity? ...

When, and if, if you ever learn and discover what God is exactly, then trying to imagine God lifting rocks, or stones, will be seen for just how Truly stupid it really is.

And, you not yet comprehending what 'omnipotent' actually means and refers to exactly explains why you cannot yet comprehend that there are NO stones at all, no matter what any of them weigh.

Also, bringing the word 'infinity' and the words 'larger than infinity' into the discussion here regarding stones is just purely nonsensical and shows and reveals how you are not comprehending and understanding here.

What you are doing here is just trying to introduce words, and saying just about anything, in an attempt to justify and/or back up and support your currently held onto belief here. Which, as can be clearly seen, is not working at all.

Even if your belief is 100% true and correct, the way you are going about trying to justify it here is not working, at all.

[bahman]

I think you are misusing the words “unbound”, “thing”, “quality”, and “exist”.

I don't think so.

Do mathematical sets exist?

Yes.

Are they things?

We can assign them to things.

And what do qualities have to do with Cantor?

We can assign numbers to different qualities. This is good quality. This is better quality. This is the best quality. I have to mention that the best quality exists among the things since some quality is bounded but it does not exist when it is applied to power.

[mickthinks]

QED, I think.

[Philosopher19]

Let's focus on omnipotent for a moment. 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. Therefore, the strongest quality does not exist either. This questions the first premise. Therefore, his argument does not follow.

If infinity is a number, it is the largest number. Where infinity is a number, saying infinity is not the largest number is like saying triangle is not triangular.

Consider the possibility that Cantor was wrong to say infinity comes in different sizes. Does infinity coming in different sizes even make clear sense to you in the same way that it makes sense to you that objectively speaking, that which no greater than can be conceived of is a truly perfect being/existence (God and Existence or the Omnipresent or the Infinite denote the same)

There is a difference between that which is set to go on forever and that which is infinite. The latter is actually infinite, the former is like trying to count to infinity. Even if you count forever, you will never reach infinity.

[Philosopher19]

Anselm shows why if you imagine God, you must imagine her existing. But that imagined existence doesn’t entail actual existence.

Yes it does. What's the difference between existing and actually existing? Existing or being Real is a semantical component of Perfect just as 'angles adding up to 180 degrees' is a semantical component of triangle. This is the nature of Existence. A triangle's interior angles add up to 180 degrees, a truly perfect being really exists.

Better to be really good than imaginary good. This is objectively true by semantics/definition/reason. Objectively we know that Perfect = a really/truly perfect being/existence. Since Omnipresence is an attribute of God, Existence and God denote the same Being/Existent.

[Philosopher19]

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

You cannot imagine something greater than a truly perfect being/existence. That's like saying you can imagine something more triangular than a perfect triangle.

Whatever you give me (such as the perfect life) it is imperfect in an imperfect existence. It is only perfect in a perfect existence.

A truly perfect being/existence is not just subjectively that which no greater than can be conceived of. It is objectively that which no greater than can be conceived of.

[mickthinks]

Anselm shows why if you imagine God, you must imagine her existing. But that imagined existence doesn’t entail actual existence.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn’t.

A perfect Euclidean triangle's interior angles add up to 180 degrees. Though such a thing exists in every mathematician’s imagination, such a triangle is not to be found in the real world.

[FlashDangerpants]

Better to be really good than imaginary good. This is objectively true by semantics/definition/reason.

It's nonsense to claim that a normative evaluation such as "better" is the sort of thing that might qualify as an objective truth. I direct you to mister Hume for the explanation of this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[bahman]

Let's focus on omnipotent for a moment. 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. Therefore, the strongest quality does not exist either. This questions the first premise. Therefore, his argument does not follow.

If infinity is a number, it is the largest number. Where infinity is a number, saying infinity is not the largest number is like saying triangle is not triangular.

Consider the possibility that Cantor was wrong to say infinity comes in different sizes. Does infinity coming in different sizes even make clear sense to you in the same way that it makes sense to you that objectively speaking, that which no greater than can be conceived of is a truly perfect being/existence (God and Existence or the Omnipresent or the Infinite denote the same)

There is a difference between that which is set to go on forever and that which is infinite. The latter is actually infinite, the former is like trying to count to infinity. Even if you count forever, you will never reach infinity.

Cantor was right.

[bahman]

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

You cannot imagine something greater than a truly perfect being/existence. That's like saying you can imagine something more triangular than a perfect triangle.

Whatever you give me (such as the perfect life) it is imperfect in an imperfect existence. It is only perfect in a perfect existence.

A truly perfect being/existence is not just subjectively that which no greater than can be conceived of. It is objectively that which no greater than can be conceived of.

Again, according to Cantor, the largest does not exist.

[Philosopher19]

Anselm shows why if you imagine God, you must imagine her existing. But that imagined existence doesn’t entail actual existence.

Yes it does.

No, it doesn’t.

A perfect Euclidean triangle's interior angles add up to 180 degrees. Though such a thing exists in every mathematician’s imagination, such a triangle is not to be found in the real world.

Do you agree with the following:

Any belief or theory or statement that is semantically contradictory, is wrong by definition.

For example: Triangles have four sides. This is semantically contradictory, thus it is wrong by definition.