Anslem's Ontological Argument

[Spenner]

This is an interesting argument. Though it contains a fatal flaw, something quite trivial. What is wrong with the argument, and, what part of it is wrong?

Anselms Ontological Argument:

1) Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3) A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5) We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists.

By following the rules of the argument it would conclude that God must exist, which is some interesting trickery. So, what do you make of it?

[ilikexd]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

2) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3) A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.

2) says that the idea of God exists in the mind, not God itself.

[Spenner]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Well that was easy. Thread done.

I should have rephrased it to make it less obvious, which is what was done someplace else : I

[benguino]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.

[Spenner]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.

Making a rock that an omnipotent figure cannot lift is a contradiction-- by definition it is able to move said rock

What could you not do if you are omnipotent? Well theoretically there shouldn't be anything, because anything that it cannot do just contradicts the definition of the omnipotent. You could get paradoxical and say that "God cannot destroy God and then create God", technically it should be able to still do that though. I'm sure there's a better example out there.

[mi40]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

god is dead

[ilikexd]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.

This depends on your definition of 'omnipotent'. It doesn't necessarily mean capable of performing logical absurdities.

It's like saying God can create a system of equations that he can't solve. It's not that God would be incapable per se, it's that such capability can't exist.

An omnipotent being creating an object he could not move can be thought of as an inconsistent system of equations; the premises, immovable rock and omnipotent being, are inconsistent and cannot simultaneously exist.

[benguino]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Yeah, the counter arguments usually tackles the definition of omnipotent. The most common say that god doesn't need necessarily be completely omnipotent, but that instead he is capable of doing anything "in his nature", or in other words, capable of doing whatever he wants.

@spenner: I thought I implied that, I guess my explanation wasn't clear. Basically the "proof" shows that nothing can be omnipotent and since god must be an omnipotent being, then he can't exist.

[Spenner]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Yeah, the counter arguments usually tackles the definition of omnipotent. The most common say that god doesn't need necessarily be completely omnipotent, but that instead he is capable of doing anything "in his nature", or in other words, capable of doing whatever he wants.

@spenner: I thought I implied that, I guess my explanation wasn't clear. Basically the "proof" shows that nothing can be omnipotent and since god must be an omnipotent being, then he can't exist.

Another reason the example is not clear is because I don't believe such an object has the necessity to exist, kinda like what ilikeit was getting at. Again though when you define omnipotent as being able to do ANYTHING, that is strongly adhered to even when you suggest that it do something it cannot. It's like saying infinity + 1 cannot be greater than infinity, but theoretically it's an idea that there is one greater integer than all the numbers there is.

I'm not a huge math nerd but I'm pretty sure ∞+1 is perfectly valid. If we could assume an anything-doing omnipotent being to be ∞, (that is, contains all the actions that it could) and for it to make something it "cannot" make to be ∞+1, it's still theoretically part of the same system. Otherwise, perhaps the impossible objects are already inside "∞", by definition of it, because infinity already contains ∞+1 technically.

[kaiten123]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

this is the first time i've seen 2 or more people discuss this argument without at least one of them starting to laugh almost instantly at how terrible it is.

[qqwref]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Replacing "god" with anything else makes it pretty clear that this argument fails (but not why). The best possible girlfriend must also exist, since that would make her even better!

Basically the problem is that the God in the argument is a hypothetical concept - it must be, because to avoid circular reasoning we cannot start off by assuming God exists as a real entity. So all properties are hypothetical - if we can reason that our hypothetical God must have a property P, then we really mean that if God existed he would have to have P. Steps 4 and 5 don't actually end up with "therefore, God exists in reality" but "therefore, this hypothetical concept God we are reasoning about would exist in reality". This existence-in-reality property we are talking about is still a hypothetical property of a hypothetical object. So, if God existed, he would have to exist in reality. Not very useful.

I'm not a huge math nerd but I'm pretty sure ∞+1 is perfectly valid..

Not really, normally*. You can "add" 1 to infinity - it's not really adding since infinity isn't actually a number, although you can do something like ask about the size of a set A defined as the set of all numbers that are either integers or 1/2 - but the result is no different from infinity.

*There are other mathematical systems such as ordinal numbers that allow expressions such as ∞+1, and make them different from ∞, but that only has meaning within that system, not within math in general.

[PaperclipGames]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

This is an interesting argument if you assume the following premise:
Premise: If god exists, he is omnipotent (can do anything)

Argument: If you could do anything, he could make a rock that he wouldn't be able to carry. But if he does that, he wouldnt be able to carry the rock which is something he wouldn't be able to do which would mean he isn't omnipotent. In the case he couldn't make such a rock, that's still something he wouldn't be able to do (I.e. make the rock) so in either case, we have shown God can't be omnipotent. Therefore, god can't exist by our premise.

If God exists and can do anything, he can still lift a rock that he cannot lift.

He simply can and cannot, at the same time. And if you say that's impossible, I'll simply mention again that god can do anything - apparently, breaking logic as well.

[benguino]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Rip logic

Edit: if anyone wants to know, I am somewhat religious. I am a Christian and I define my own denomination. Although, I will admit, I do question my faith but I still believe in some type of greater power in the universe, whoever or whatever it may be.

[SlayerApocalypse666]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

If God exists and can do anything, he can still lift a rock that he cannot lift.

He simply can and cannot, at the same time. And if you say that's impossible, I'll simply mention again that god can do anything - apparently, breaking logic as well.

That made me laugh, oh god, thx !

[Spenner]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

I am a Christian

Rip logic

You're tellin me

Honestly though, no beef, I'm sure you're insightful enough to have rationality. As long as the earth isn't 6000 years to you bro.

But yeah clearly this logic fails right away because idea is being paralleled to real things. It's kind of interesting to think that this has apparently made people's heads hurt for generations, but I guess at a much earlier time it would have appeared to be a more valid logic. It makes me wonder who else adapted that kind of philosophy.