(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.