↪charleton Yeah, Charlie I don't think you understand what's going on at all. — StreetlightX
Why?The point of changing 'is' to 'would be' is to expose the fact that 'existence in the understanding' is hypothetical to begin with. — StreetlightX
That's your mistake. Ideality and actuality are different only in finite beings. But for the infinite being, God, there is no gap between ideality and actuality. So of course, if you treat God as a finite thing - as one more being amongst other beings - then the argument fails. That's precisely the reason why the argument doesn't work for the perfect island.It equivocates on the whole concept of existence, confusing, from the very beginning, ideality and actuality — StreetlightX
God is rather defined as maximally great.God is defined as a being than which none greater can be imagined. — Michael
The being is not imagined to exist in reality. "Imagined" is not a useful word. To exist in the understanding is to exist qua thought & concept (which is similar to your imagination). To exist in reality is to be an instantiation of whatever the corresponding thought or concept is. The argument is not talking about imagining God as existing in reality.If a being that is imagined to exist in reality is greater than a being that is imagined to exist in understanding alone then the first premise of the argument is: — Michael
You've been spewing a lot of nonsense in this thread, but this mistaken understanding is precisely the problem. You treat God as another being amongst beings - as finite. Sure, for a finite being, concept and actuality are not identical.And you read me as supportive of ontological arguments and the idea that concepts alone can vouchsafe a being's actuality? — fdrake
The being is not imagined to exist in reality. "Imagined" is not a useful word. To exist in the understanding is to exist qua thought & concept (which is similar to your imagination). To exist in reality is to be an instantiation of whatever the corresponding thought or concept is. The argument is not talking about imagining God as existing in reality. — Agustino
That's your mistake. Ideality and actuality are different only in finite beings. But for the infinite being, God, there is no gap between ideality and actuality. So of course, if you treat God as a finite thing - as one more being amongst other beings - then the argument fails. That's precisely the reason why the argument doesn't work for the perfect island. — Agustino
God really exists in the understanding, that is the claim of premise — Agustino
It does, as the key premise of the argument is "we can imagine something greater". The content of our concepts are an integral part of the argument. — Michael
But that is simply rubbish. Imagining a thing does not help it to become real. This is so obvious. This is a no brainer. The entire argument is absurd for this simple reason.
What is wrong with you? — charleton
I'm not claiming otherwise. I'm arguing that one of the argument's premises is false. As others have suggested, your criticisms seem to be directed at the wrong people. — Michael
Read the rest of the freakin' post you trigger happy wing-nut. — fdrake
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.