The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Before you properly analyze this argument first imagine a universe in which nothing whatever exists. Would that be preferable to the universe we know? — Wayfarer
"1. God is the greatest being imaginable
(And bear in mind, as far as science can detect, the non existence of a universe ought to be far more likely than the alternative.)
Doesn't saying God is a "being" beg the question, since the word "being", implies existence. — Cavacava
The sentence "God is the greatest being imaginable" when formalized looks something like:
"There exists the greatest being (entity) imaginable and is called God.". In the first premise you assume that God exists, why bother proving its existence? — Meta
I agree to some extent. However premise 1 is God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent - OOO) and ''exists'' only in imagination.
In premise 4, the greatest being is the OOO God BUT this time, it exists for real. — TheMadFool
then how could "..the non existence of a universe ought to be far more likely than the alternative" hold? — Cavacava
I've been thinking is existence greater than nonexistence? It seems to me that the answer won't be a unanimous ''yes'' or ''no''. — TheMadFool
In the first premise you assume that God exists, why bother proving its existence? — Meta
But this is the same definition of your supposed greater-than-God being, which means it's not greater than God at all, but identical to God. — Michael
Reality' is presumed by every utterance or proposition. So it cannot not exist. — Wayfarer
1. God is the greatest being imaginable [premise]
4. If God doesn't exist then I can imagine a being greater than God (a greatest being who exists)
Difference between the Gods:
God in 1 exists only in the imagination
God in 4 exists in both imagination and the real world — TheMadFool
I stand corrected. It really was about an imaginary or conceptual god.↪noAxioms
The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists
— Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I'm thinking conceive = imagine
Am I wrong still? What's the difference between ''conceive'' and ''imagine''? — TheMadFool
So either we don't accept the argument or we accept it, but then we can prove weird things. — Meta
the argument seems to say that if God doesn't exist, he wouldn't be God — noAxioms
The argument seems to be a simple tautology. — noAxioms
If I understand you correctly, there's no difference between
1. God that exists in imagination
And
2. God that exists in imagination AND the real world
Why do you say that? — TheMadFool
I can imagine a horse. It may or may not exist in the real world. If it doesn't then it exists only in the imagination. If it exists in the real world, then it exists both in imagination AND the real world. Do the two horses not differ? According to you there's no difference. But there is - one is purely imaginary and the other is real, in the usual sense of the word.
The first requirement was faith, then afterwards the various 'proofs' were contemplated. — Wayfarer
The first requirement was faith, then afterwards the various 'proofs' were contemplated.
— Wayfarer
One can say this IS the religious position. — schopenhauer1
This is a perfectly valid argument however we need predicate logic and knowledge about human beings to know that is in fact invalid. Anselm's argument is the same. — Meta
1. God is the greatest being imaginable [premise]
2. If God is the greatest being imaginable then I can't imagine a being greater than God [premise]
3. I can't imagine a being greater than God [Conclusion A from 1 and 2 modus ponens]
4. If God doesn't exist then I can imagine a being greater than God (a greatest being who exists) [premise]
Therefore
5. God exists [Conclusion B from 3 and 4 modus tollens] — TheMadFool
BTW, what do you mean by "greatest"? — Harry Hindu
If I understand you correctly, there's no difference between
1. God that exists in imagination
And
2. God that exists in imagination AND the real world
Why do you say that?
— TheMadFool
I'm saying that the God you imagine in 1 is identical to the super-God you imagine in 4. In both cases you imagine a thing to really exist. — Michael
This is why you need to not use the term "greatest being" and instead spell out the relevant properties. It makes things much clearer. What are the properties of the greatest being imaginable? — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.