Anselm argument and problem within

[bahman]

Okay.

I have a problem with the first premise.

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

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

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.

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).

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?

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?

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.

Okay.

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

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.

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.

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

[bahman]

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!

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.

[mickthinks]

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.

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.

[bahman]

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.

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? ...

[mickthinks]

There is no stone, dude.

[snide redundancy removed]

[bahman]

There is no stone, dude.

How long is it going to take for you to realise you are way out of your depth here ...

When we say that God is omnipotent then natural question that comes to mind is how much is He powerful.

[mickthinks]

Not if you know what the word “omnipotent” means.

[bahman]

Not if you know what the word “omnipotent” means.

What does it mean to you? To me, it means that God can do anything which is logically possible.

[mickthinks]

Yes, or in other words, there is nothing, within reason, that God cannot do. That’s nothing with a capital 0 .

[bahman]

Yes, or in other words, there is nothing, within reason, that God cannot do. That’s nothing with a capital 0 .

But God cannot create something unbound.

[mickthinks]

I think now you are stringing words together just to appear still to have something more to say.

[bahman]

I think now you are stringing words together just to appear still to have something more to say.

Sure, can God create a very heavy thing? Yes, sure if He is strong enough. Can God create an infinitely heavy thing? Sure if He is strong enough... That is where the number comes into play. The reality is that the unbound thing does not exist given the Cantor theorem so God cannot create an unbound thing since He could not be unbound as well.

[mickthinks]

If the existence of the unbound thing is logically impossible that would mean its creation is not within God’s power. We are wandering further and further off the topic of Anselm’s ontological argument, because you haven’t anything more to add.

[bahman]

If the existence of the unbound thing is logically impossible that would mean its creation is not within God’s power.

So to you, God can only create bounded things since He is also bounded as well?

[mickthinks]

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