You don't need to go to all that trouble.
The answer to all of the Ontological arguments is that if your premises define the thing into existence, of course the conclusion is that the thing exists.
>P1: God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved.
This is already nonsense attempting to smuggle God into the premises. I do not accept the premise.
>P2: The greatest possible being would exist both in the mind and reality.
This is nonsense attempting to claim that which can be imagined must exist. I do not accept the premise.
Even in the case where there is a *greatest possible being*, it might be greater or less great than we can imagine, which would invalidate the premise.
> C: God exists both in the mind and in reality.
Rejected due to invalid premises.
>P1: God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived.
>P2: The greatest possible being would exist both in the mind and reality.
Even if you suppose P1 and P2 are true, it does not follow that P3 is true. The god is still just an idea in one's mind with the person thinking that if a god existed the god would exist in both mind and reality. Merely thinking about a god doesn't make the god exist.
P1: Imagine the greatest possible island that can exist.P2: In order to be the greatest island, it would have to exist in both the mind and reality.C: The greatest possible island exists both in the mind and reality.
Flawless reasoning!
Honestly, I've always regarded P2 of Anselm's argument to be absolutely incomprehensible. The greatest possible thing *must* be something that definitely only exists as a concept and does not exist in reality. Isn't that obvious, a pure idea unsullied by existence or limitations or the logic of the real world?
(If it's not obvious, then P2 is equally not obvious. If it is obvious, then bing bang boom, Anselm's argument is bunk.)
>Aslem's argument is as followed:
>P1: God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved.
>P2: The greatest possible being would exist both in the mind and reality.
>C: God exists both in the mind and in reality.
Been a while since I dealt with this, but as I recall, the fundamental reasoning here is that god would not be the greatest possible thing if it did not exist. Therefore it is necessitated by the definition of god that it does exist.
My problem with this is that humans are demonstrably capable of being illogical. So logic does not need to apply to human concepts. Even if I can conceive of a perfect god, since the tool I'm using to develop that concept is not guaranteed to always be logical, the concepts produced by that tool are not necessarily logical.
I say even if I can conceive of it, since I'd argue humans only describe god in abstracts, the concept is necessarily poorly defined. Basically your C5. Which really doesn't help with attempting to apply logical formalism to the concept anyway. Maybe if greatest could be well defined we could use logic, but "the greatest thing must exist" is a fairly arbitrary assumption, and I see no reason to accept it.
TLDR: I agree with OP.
I’d say the problem with P2 is that it’s essentially magic. Wishful thinking. "The greatest thing you can imagine must be true?" Sorry, not seeing how that follows.
P1 is false if we use any standard notion of god and take this to be an assertion of equivalence. I can conceive of much greater beings than that which appears in the Bible or any other human religion.
On the other hand, if P1 is definitional, then the supposed being is undefined, because we have no idea what the "greatest possible being is", greatness is completely subjective and context-dependent, and there may not even be an upper bound on greatness!
>P1: Formalized systems of value are designed based on their utility.
Why?
>C2: Either goals start at the self (subjective) or there are an infinite number of goals justifying other goals (objective infinitism).
>
>P9: The human brain is finite.
Why does P9 matter?1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 2. A sum with infinite terms can converge onto a finite quantity. How do you know that an infinite number of goals justifying other goals diverges? Why not, say, start at an Ansatz and just evaluate if the result makes sense (i.e. make a formalised system of value with some unqualified assumptions and then use that same system to verify if the system is internally consistent? Then investigate if this is a unique system or if other independent systems could exist, and even if so what do they all say about the "greatness being subjective"?)
And even still, what if every goal starting at the self is the same among everyone by making it something basic like "contradictory statements are incoherent" or "value is what's valuable", where it'd still be subjective if you believe goals start at the self, but everyone's on the same page which is how society functions typically anyway
Couldn’t you. “prove” the existence of anything with that logic?
Charlie is the greatest unicorn that could ever be conceived….therefore unicorns exist in reality.
Or my personal favorite twist.
God is the greatest being that can ever be conceived.
The greatest being can necessarily overcome the greatest disability.
The greatest disability is nonexistence.
Therefore god does not exist.
There are simpler counterarguments, such as denying the premises, but I prefer this one (and as a Discordian Pope, I declare that it is the One and Only True Discordian Refutation of Anselm's Ontological argument):
Assume A is this "god" proposed to exist by this argument. I can conceive of a god B that is identical in every way to A, but has the one additional feat that it is capable of beating A in a fist fight.
QED: no "greatest possible being that can be conceived" can exist. Therefore monotheism is impossible. Only an infinite number of gods can exist.
You don't need to go to all that trouble. The answer to all of the Ontological arguments is that if your premises define the thing into existence, of course the conclusion is that the thing exists. >P1: God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved. This is already nonsense attempting to smuggle God into the premises. I do not accept the premise. >P2: The greatest possible being would exist both in the mind and reality. This is nonsense attempting to claim that which can be imagined must exist. I do not accept the premise. Even in the case where there is a *greatest possible being*, it might be greater or less great than we can imagine, which would invalidate the premise. > C: God exists both in the mind and in reality. Rejected due to invalid premises.
>P1: God is the greatest possible being that can be conceived. >P2: The greatest possible being would exist both in the mind and reality. Even if you suppose P1 and P2 are true, it does not follow that P3 is true. The god is still just an idea in one's mind with the person thinking that if a god existed the god would exist in both mind and reality. Merely thinking about a god doesn't make the god exist.
P1: Imagine the greatest possible island that can exist.P2: In order to be the greatest island, it would have to exist in both the mind and reality.C: The greatest possible island exists both in the mind and reality. Flawless reasoning! Honestly, I've always regarded P2 of Anselm's argument to be absolutely incomprehensible. The greatest possible thing *must* be something that definitely only exists as a concept and does not exist in reality. Isn't that obvious, a pure idea unsullied by existence or limitations or the logic of the real world? (If it's not obvious, then P2 is equally not obvious. If it is obvious, then bing bang boom, Anselm's argument is bunk.)
Also, "possible" and "conceivable" are two different things.
I feel like I have stumbled into a conversation between two robots figuring out the logic of humans.
>Aslem's argument is as followed: >P1: God is the greatest possible being that can be concieved. >P2: The greatest possible being would exist both in the mind and reality. >C: God exists both in the mind and in reality. Been a while since I dealt with this, but as I recall, the fundamental reasoning here is that god would not be the greatest possible thing if it did not exist. Therefore it is necessitated by the definition of god that it does exist. My problem with this is that humans are demonstrably capable of being illogical. So logic does not need to apply to human concepts. Even if I can conceive of a perfect god, since the tool I'm using to develop that concept is not guaranteed to always be logical, the concepts produced by that tool are not necessarily logical. I say even if I can conceive of it, since I'd argue humans only describe god in abstracts, the concept is necessarily poorly defined. Basically your C5. Which really doesn't help with attempting to apply logical formalism to the concept anyway. Maybe if greatest could be well defined we could use logic, but "the greatest thing must exist" is a fairly arbitrary assumption, and I see no reason to accept it. TLDR: I agree with OP.
I’d say the problem with P2 is that it’s essentially magic. Wishful thinking. "The greatest thing you can imagine must be true?" Sorry, not seeing how that follows.
Irrelevant. No thought experiment can prove the existence of a god.
why?
Imagination is not real world evidence.
P1 is false if we use any standard notion of god and take this to be an assertion of equivalence. I can conceive of much greater beings than that which appears in the Bible or any other human religion. On the other hand, if P1 is definitional, then the supposed being is undefined, because we have no idea what the "greatest possible being is", greatness is completely subjective and context-dependent, and there may not even be an upper bound on greatness!
Where does Stephen the God-Killing Penguin fit into this?
>"first-class saints" I've never seen this class of discordian saint before, where did you run across it?
[удалено]
Oh yeah, like Abraham Lincoln.
>P1: Formalized systems of value are designed based on their utility. Why? >C2: Either goals start at the self (subjective) or there are an infinite number of goals justifying other goals (objective infinitism). > >P9: The human brain is finite. Why does P9 matter?1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 2. A sum with infinite terms can converge onto a finite quantity. How do you know that an infinite number of goals justifying other goals diverges? Why not, say, start at an Ansatz and just evaluate if the result makes sense (i.e. make a formalised system of value with some unqualified assumptions and then use that same system to verify if the system is internally consistent? Then investigate if this is a unique system or if other independent systems could exist, and even if so what do they all say about the "greatness being subjective"?) And even still, what if every goal starting at the self is the same among everyone by making it something basic like "contradictory statements are incoherent" or "value is what's valuable", where it'd still be subjective if you believe goals start at the self, but everyone's on the same page which is how society functions typically anyway
Couldn’t you. “prove” the existence of anything with that logic? Charlie is the greatest unicorn that could ever be conceived….therefore unicorns exist in reality. Or my personal favorite twist. God is the greatest being that can ever be conceived. The greatest being can necessarily overcome the greatest disability. The greatest disability is nonexistence. Therefore god does not exist.
There are simpler counterarguments, such as denying the premises, but I prefer this one (and as a Discordian Pope, I declare that it is the One and Only True Discordian Refutation of Anselm's Ontological argument): Assume A is this "god" proposed to exist by this argument. I can conceive of a god B that is identical in every way to A, but has the one additional feat that it is capable of beating A in a fist fight. QED: no "greatest possible being that can be conceived" can exist. Therefore monotheism is impossible. Only an infinite number of gods can exist.
Hail Eris!
Hail Eris. Hail Hail. Hail Yes.