(1) We define God as something than which nothing greater can be thought

existence isnt a predicate. the arguments ar emeaningless. hope youre kidding op.

>God exists because yeah
>Haha stupid atheist!
Top arguments user, i'm really impressed.

You're still stuck on the second premise, I see. There really is no point replying if you do not engage with the argument properly

I am not sure how to respond to misunderstanding of this level, user. Is English not your mother tongue?

In the argument presented, Anselm is not suggesting that it is (or is not)

I'm well impressed by your response as well, user.

>The question is what would happen if there remained no mysteries left for our understanding
you can't predict the future

>(1) We define God as something than which nothing greater can be thought
That's a shit definition. Almost all people would agree that god is greater than anything you can conceive of.
>(2) God as just defined certainly exists as a concept, i.e. in the mind; even the atheist Fool must grant this.
Does it? Define it in unrelative terms. The greatest thing I can ACTUALLY conceive of, is less than I know to exist.
>(3) We *can* think of something which is greater than something existing only as a concept
Prove it. (Pro-Tip: You can't. Mental representations are demonstrably finite. You can deduce and formally symbolize the concept of x+1...+1, but you can't endlessly conceive it.)
>(4) So: something than which nothing greater can be thought cannot exist *merely* as a concept.
Sure it can.
>Ergo:
>(5) God - that something than which nothing greater can be thought - exists in reality as well.
That's literally "Because I imagine something as necessarily existent, it must exist."
By this logic, I can also conceive of infinite identical gods.
I can also conceive of infinite gods of which each is just a little bit greater than the last.
I can also conceive of an interdimensional pink elephant, which encompasses all.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, at least admit it.
I drew you a diagram.

This, as depicted, is an impossibility (assuming I am perfectly logical), following your argument.
God, i.e. the green triangle, would have to be both where it is now, as well as within the red box.
HOWEVER, there is NO reason why the green triangle should have to also be outside of my mind, within the blue box.

Damn, you're right, I didn't consider that.

>using a priori arguments on why God should exist
>I meet you half way and say yes, God as an idea is ever present in humankind, but why do you think that is?
>ask whether God acts as a placeholder for human mystery
>hurr is English your first language
have fun masturbating, don't let me interrupt.

>You're still stuck on the second premise, I see. There really is no point replying if you do not engage with the argument properly
Begging the question

>god as contained object within the world
You are just fucking yourself over right now.
Also your imagination is not an object within the world. It's a representation. The same way a painting of your face is not your face. It's paint.

What is a god, but a being of immense power?

>That's a shit definition. Almost all people would agree that god is greater than anything you can conceive of.

That is a fine definition that works just as well. There is really no difference in meaning.

>Does it? Define it in unrelative terms. The greatest thing I can ACTUALLY conceive of, is less than I know to exist.
>Mental representations are demonstrably finite. You can deduce and formally symbolize the concept of x+1...+1, but you can't endlessly conceive it.

This is, really, all beside the point. I'm not going to explain why, rather I'll grant you your definition. That, perhaps, will get you to see why this is so.

>hurr that contradicts my ontology therefore it is false, even though I never argued why my ontology has to be correct
"The World" is the entire ontos. It's Parmenides' sphere, which you can only see from the inside. There is no outside. My mind exists within that. However, something existing withing the ontos, WITHIN my mind, does NOT mean, that it exists within the ontos, but OUTSIDE of my mind.
You fucking retard.

>god does not exist within the world
>god exists

either way, that's irrelevant nitpicking, nothing in Anselm's arguments claims whether god is or is not contained within the world.

> God as just defined certainly exists as a concept, i.e. in the mind; even the atheist Fool must grant this.

Incorrect. Concepts do not "exist," at least not in the sense of the word which also applies to material objects. I can show you five apples or five fingers. I cannot show you five. Five does not exist, it's an abstraction. The same is true of any purely theoretical object (including God as you've defined him) — it doesn't have the same kind of existence that material objects do.

Basically, this is an abuse of terminology. There should be separate terms for "exists as a theoretical object which we can do reasoning about" and "exists as a material object in the real world." Your conception of God is the former, but you incorrectly equate that with the latter, then use that error to "prove" that he exists in the concrete sense. Even if you weren't wrong, you'd be begging the question.

I'm all for God, but this isn't the way. Setting aside the hair-splitting about existence, is God really the greatest thing of which we can conceive? I can imagine a God that's kinder, wiser, and more powerful than the God of the bible, and I can show by induction that there isn't a "greatest possible" at all. So the definition you set forth in (1) is self-defeating. Furthermore, it can't apply to the vengeful God of the Old Testament or the forgiving God of the New Testament, nor can it apply to the God of any other religion. Even if definition (1) was consistent and accurate, this argument still wouldn't point us towards any known religion. It would just establish the existence of a perfect thing.

>That is a fine definition that works just as well. There is really no difference in meaning.
They mean radically different things. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Anselm's argument. The entire argument is premised on the divine perfection of the mind and extension of the soul. It can honestly be boiled down to the commonly held belief of religious intuition, separate from reason.
>This is, really, all beside the point. I'm not going to explain why, rather I'll grant you your definition. That, perhaps, will get you to see why this is so.
It isn't, since your argument does not lead (exclusively) to your desired conclusion, even if we grant your premises and logic.

>>I meet you half way and say yes, God as an idea is ever present in humankind, but why do you think that is?

The answer to this question is totally irrelevant for the argument, which you've still not engaged with. Hence the question. Thanks for 'meeting me half way'. Have a fine next one as well.

I've never understood this argument.

I don't understand how there's any sort of necessity that step (4) requires step (5).

You made a few errors.

Then god is, by definition, not the greatest thing you can conceive of, now is it?

Also you are assuming your mind is a real thing and not just an emergent illusion. Ideas are not real.
"But muh platonism."
Oh look, more metaphysical conjecture.
See the above.
A contained god contradicts the premise.

Also, Anselm's argument LITERALLY says that concepts exist, i.e. are within the ontos, which in my diagram is called "The World", since that's the only place where there is existence.

Concepts do exist. As potential, if nothing else.
Of course, this can be turned the other way; if God seems absent, we can bring Him forth.

You cannot appeal to our limited powers of imagination if you want to refute the argument. You do not need to be able to visualize the content of a concept (i.e. that which it refers to) in order to be able to grasp a concept.

>Then god is, by definition, not the greatest thing you can conceive of, now is it?
How so?

>mind is a real thing and not just an emergent illusion. Ideas are not real
See , you literally use that as part of your argument.
But there IS NOTHING outside of the ontos, as I define it. Therefore, my mind has to be within it. And if we want to get all fedorafaggy, my mind is just the result of a certain set of functioning neurons, which are certainly contained within the world.

How does it contradict the premise?
>god is greatest
>exists as a concept, in minds
>we can think of the concept
>cannot be merely a concept in the mind
>God exists in reality

It makes zero difference to the argument whether God is contained within his created world or not.

Then that opens up the argument to the infinite possibilities, which must all equally exist. Even the ones I haven't conceived of yet, but could conceive of.

>How so?
Because you picture is a literal Venn-Diagram, dum-dum.
>But there IS NOTHING outside of the ontos, as I define it. Therefore, my mind has to be within it.
>as I define it
The argument hinges on the irrefutability of the premises.
You just admitted to hidden premises, which people do not necessarily agree with.
And down the drain the argument goes.
>And if we want to get all fedorafaggy, my mind is just the result of a certain set of functioning neurons, which are certainly contained within the world.
You seem to have skipped the part about emergence.
Your mind isn't an object. Even if your brain is. No more than the game of chess is an object, just because chessboards exist.

I (OP) have not replied to your drawing yet. The argument proves that you're triangly God also exists outside of those purple borders, for it cannot merely exist within it once you grant (and grasp) the definition. These are my posts as well, I've no clue who I'm replying to any longer:

I wish people would shut the fuck up already about existence and being.

Existence exists, non-existence doesn't exist.
That which is will always be.

Nothing more can be said about existence and being, now shut the fuck up!

This, essentially.
It boils down to "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Because nothing is a meme to begin with.

>It boils down to "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Ummm, no sweetie.
You are implying something actually exists.

How come I am, if nothing exists?

Just because something is the greatest existing thing doesn't make it god.

The idea that because you can imagine something greater than all things means that it exists is silly. Or what something must exist for every power you can imagine is silly.

Sure there is something at the apex, but is it a god? There isn't a reason to believe there is.

>I can also conceive of infinite gods of which each is just a little bit greater than the last.

Sure: but you conceive only of one thing than which *nothing greater can be thought*

>I can also conceive of an interdimensional pink elephant, which encompasses all.

You sure can; now would you say that is the entity which something greater than cannot be thought?

Even if I grant your capability to form an infinite amount of concepts, only the one with the content 'something than which nothing greater can be thought' can be said to exist in mind independent reality as well. The others you'll need to confirm a posteriori; I recommend you not try.

>(1) We define God as something than which nothing greater can be thought
Sure
>(2) God as just defined certainly exists as a concept, i.e. in the mind; even the atheist Fool must grant this.
Ok, yes, the concept you outlined is a concept.
>(3) We *can* think of something which is greater than something existing only as a concept
Yeah ok, something existing is greater than something that is only a concept.
>(4) So: something than which nothing greater can be thought cannot exist *merely* as a concept. Ergo:
Your whole argument falls apart here because there is no reason to make this assumption.
>(5) God - that something than which nothing greater can be thought - exists in reality as well.
Again, because step 4 has no logic or reasoning behind it you can't make this leap.

I'm not seeing why because you can think of something you think it has to exist. Or that a conceptual summit has to exist in reality.

>if nothing exists?

You're putting words in my mouth. All I did was point out your assumption that something exists. I did not say that nothing exists.

Do not mistake God for a 'thing' in the world.

Ok, sure. We're still arriving at the same point that you don't have any actual reasoning for the existence of this summit beyond a non-connected assertion that it must.

>Sure: but you conceive only of one thing than which *nothing greater can be thought*
Sure I can.
*nothing greater can be though, now in blue*
Or just multiple of the same.
>You sure can; now would you say that is the entity which something greater than cannot be thought?
By your logic, yes. All I have to do is call it the pink elephant of which no greater can be thought.
>Even if I grant your capability to form an infinite amount of concepts,
I can, because your definition of conception seems to be nothing else than creating the semantic for it.
>only the one with the content 'something than which nothing greater can be thought' can be said to exist in mind independent reality as well.
Why?
And again: I can conceive of multiple such things, by your definition of conception. Heck, let's just conceptualize the things, which are greater than can be thought. Those must be super-real.

I can also conceive of an imperfect being, with the single content of being able to jump from my mind into existence. Doesn't make it so.

>The others you'll need to confirm a posteriori; I recommend you not try.
No I don't.

You cannot grant 1-3 and shy away from 4. You may disagree with the conclusion, but not on logical grounds.

You have made no logical argument. 4 is not the logical conclusion of 1-3.

Only ''something than which nothing greater can be thought'' can be proved to exist a priori. If you grant the intelligibility of the concept, the rest follows. This is not true for any of your examples. If you cannot comprehend why this is and must be so (hint: take a good look at how God was defined again), there is little point in continuing the discussion. But the fault is yours.

1)A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2)A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3)It is possible that there isn’t a being that has maximal greatness.
4)Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
5)Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
6)Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
This is exactly the as the ontological argument, heck you could write it in formula form and I'd be right. The problem with it lies in the axioms and the assumptions.

Exactly the same logic as the ontological argument*

>This is exactly the as the ontological argument,

No, you silly bugger, it is not: you merely adding 'not' to a few of the premises of this specific ontological argument is exactly what makes it not work any longer. Lord help me.

>possibly, it is necessarily true
nigga WHAT

You make a claim now defend it, why is it wrong 'now'?

why do you anti-rational christfags want to turn Veeky Forums into a safe space?
why do you hate my head garments of choice so much?

2) false

It isn't a priori just because you say it is a priori.
Not all conceptions of "something than which nothing greater can be thought" are not necessarily all identical somethings.
Your entire argument hinges on circular argumentation, supposed self-evidence and hidden platonism.

>Lets just define god as existing
The perfect entity wouldn't give a fuck about the actions of being infinitely beneath him so praising this being is pointless. It is like if you learned that 40% of ants worship you as a god and 50% worship a form of you that isn't really accurate. Would you start going out of your way to protect and rewards the ants that worshiped you? Would you let ants live in your house or apartment as long as they worshiped you?

...You don't actually know how logic works, do you?

Buy a book on logic and formalize your argument.
It will instantly pop out to you.

Most notably the bazillion hidden premises.

I do, very well. You are, indeed, right; the argument is not a proof of the existence of God to begin with. I thought it was, had a quick glance at the argument and assumed something like 'necessary/self-contained existence' to be part of "maximal greatness''. I'm not entirely sure what this argument is supposed to convey.

>I-I was only pretending to be retarded
Your post here still smells pseud too, you don't seem to follow what he was getting at with hidden premises unless you have some completely different flaw not mentioned at all in mind. Keep in mind though, you'd also be refuting this:

1)A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2)A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3)It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
4)Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5)Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6)Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
I believe it's Plantinga's argument

Our minds aren't perfect, therefore we cannot conceive of a perfect being. We can conceive god, therefore god must not be perfect.

Stop worshipping the demiurge, faggot.

>1)A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
>2)A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
>3)It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness.
>4)Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
>5)Therefore, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
>6)Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

What am I refuting, exactly? Are you incapable of seeing the difference between the Anselm's argument and this one? Yours is a modal logic proof; hardly a proof indeed, as I mentioned previously. I would not want to put it forward as a proof of the existence of God, nor should you.

This is considered the most sophisticated and popular version of the argument, I'd like to know your problems with it

>of the *ontological* argument

>(2) God as just defined certainly exists as a concept, i.e. in the mind; even the atheist Fool must grant this.
Actually he doesn't.

Just to clear my point, the problem is with the word "greater": in what sense is "greatness" being used? I can conceive of two kinds of greatness:
(1) Quantitative greatness: this number is greater than that one, this circle is greater than that one etc.
(2) Qualitative greatness: some writers are better and therefore "greater" than others, some workers do their job better than others and therefore are "greater" etc.
Obviously the greatness in the definition of God is not about quantity, so we have to stick with quality. The problem is: the concept won't make any sense. I can talk about what makes a great artist, a great chef, a great book etc., but that's because they're specific things of which I have specific expectations. However I can't simply talk about a "great being": that's a completely different use of "greatness", with no base on common sense, experience or whatever.

>We define God as
Seems like an obvious contrivance.
You could prove your waifu exists using this same logic.

The mind is not an emergent illusion (what does it even mean?). What is the sense of the word "illusion" without a mind being deluded? What is the sense of anything without a mind making sense of things?
(I'm not OP or a theist)

What gives OP? Scared of showing your pseudness like in every other reply you make?
GOOD thread btw.