Anslem's Ontological Argument

[Reincarnate]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

omnipotence is problematic to define anyway

even so, there's no evidence that such an entity exists, and besides, it isn't necessary. even if such a being were to exist, how come it exists? if you say that entity needs no explanation, when why not the universe without an omnipotent being, etc?

God, in this context, is just a placeholder for human ignorance and our need to give an answer to something.

[SlayerApocalypse666]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

It makes me wonder who else adapted that kind of philosophy.

Much people, millions i'd say........

[devonin]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

The fatal flaw in Anselm's ontological proof isn't that the idea of God exists in the mind versus God existing in the mind. That's a deliberate misunderstanding of the premise.

The idea that one has is of God existing as a being of which nothing is greater.

The actual fatal flaw in Anselm's proof is the claim that something which exists in the mind and reality is "greater" than something which exists only in the mind.

Issues around the definition of "greater" aside, there's no objective basis that that greater/better things are both conceivable and exist. One could argue for example, that the idea of having cancer is better than having cancer.

The bit you have to take on faith is that one. That "real" things are "greater" in a strict and objective sense than "Theoretical" ones, which is not proven.

[devonin]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

Also, on the subject of omniscience and omnipotence.

Omnipotence is logically impossible for the same reasons that were already stated here. When you apply the prefix 'omni' to something, you need only one counterpoint, no matter how absurd, to disprove that status. If you grant that God is simply unimaginably more powerful than we are, you get them into Godlike status without them falling afoul of the logical impossibility.

Omniscience is certainly possible, but we as humans should hope nothing has it. Because omniscience, a complete and perfect knowledge of all things, basically removes free will. The assumption of an omniscient God in the christian sense implies one that knows the past present and future. And if God already knows every decision we are going to make, those decisions cease to be free.

[Spenner]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

The fatal flaw in Anselm's ontological proof isn't that the idea of God exists in the mind versus God existing in the mind. That's a deliberate misunderstanding of the premise.

The idea that one has is of God existing as a being of which nothing is greater.

The actual fatal flaw in Anselm's proof is the claim that something which exists in the mind and reality is "greater" than something which exists only in the mind.

Issues around the definition of "greater" aside, there's no objective basis that that greater/better things are both conceivable and exist. One could argue for example, that the idea of having cancer is better than having cancer.

The bit you have to take on faith is that one. That "real" things are "greater" in a strict and objective sense than "Theoretical" ones, which is not proven.

A good point. However I can totally see how back in the day when this argument was conceived that, in this context, God is better off to exist for real than to be only a figment of the imagination. Obviously not an objective point though, and doesn't make it any more true just because of the social circumstances.

I think it's definitely naive to have the assumption that something must be real to be greater (and vice versa in a lot of cases like cancer). The essence of buddhism conveys to people the same kind of feelings one would perhaps get if they put their faith in something existing, but with ideas all being internalized in the mind (for the most part, the more important aspects). But ye it really depends on the context of what it is.

[Reincarnate]

Re: Anslem's Ontological Argument

tl;dr The whole thing is full of subjective terms and faulty assumptions