Anselm's 'ontological Argument'

[Tarser]

I am studying philosophy and would very much like to understand Anselm's 'Ontological argument' for the existence of God, but so far, after lots of thought, I still don't get it. Here's the basic argument:

1. God is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived
2. I can conceive of such a being
3. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the imagination
4. Therefore the being of which I conceive must exist in reality

I got this from an excellent book by Stephen Law who describes the argument as 'simple and elegant'. Why is it so??? To me, it makes no sense at all. To me, it comes down to this: I can imagine something, so it's real....obviously not the greatest piece of philosophical thought, so I must be missing something fundamental. What am I not understanding? Why is this even an argument at all?

[jomifl]

The absence of anything is the only possible manifestation of perfection but as perfection is a human concept and there wouldn't be any humans if nothing existed then perfection cannot exist.......possibly

[naomi24]

... or then again ... not. :o)

[Khandro]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/

[jomifl]

None of the above arguments seem to stack up Khandro ..eg comparing an imaginary thing with a real thing is like comparing apples with .......nothing.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Agreed, and it's also impossible to make comparison between a religious mind of the 11th century and a religiously sceptical one of the 21st

[jomifl]

The problem with making deductions based on purely philosophical reasoning is that because the conclusions are never tested against the real world they are then used as a basis for further deductions and so the errors multiply ...which explains why some people think that a god exists. Had they tested their deductions against reality they would have realised that god does exist but only in the fantasy world of their imagination which of course is usually congruent with their wishes. Reminds me of a sex shop in Rotterdam which had a sign saying open 24 hours obviously the 24 hours was up because it was closed.

[Khandro]

// obviously the 24 hours was up because it was closed.//

Were you very disappointed?

[jomifl]

Utterly devastated...Like the time I went into a KFC and they had run out of chicken. Funny how the vagaries of fate seem sometimes to save us from our more base lusts..

[Theland]

Do you think God is a sample in a test tube?
He wants more than mere curiosity to reveal Himself to you.
Mans wisdom is but foolishness to God.
You will get nowhere without a change of heart.

[birdie1971]

↑ Amazing that a mere mortal such as yourself appears to know the mind of God intimately. How so? If you're getting your "knowledge" from the Bible, remember that it too was written by mere mortals struggling to understand the "mind" of God.

I find it amusing that God-fearing individuals such as yourself who proclaim the God hypothesis to be literally true are the same ones who regularly state that the mind of God is also unknowable to us mere humans, hence the notion of Him "moving in mysterious ways". The paradoxical notion espoused by you and others is, "Do what God wants you to do but don't question Him as His plan is impossible to comprehend.".

Also known as the "having-your-cake-and-eating-it" concept.

[jomifl]

Theland, how can you compare god with a sample in a test tube? a sample in a test tube real whereas god is imaginary..

[Old_Geezer]

Wish they'd taught philosophy at my school. Never mind.

I suspect if I read all the posts above in detail I'd find much of it has already been said but my take on it:

1. God is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived.

This is one possible definition of a Deity. We may run with it. I'm unsure "greater" is well defined though, and may cause issues.

2. I can conceive of such a being

Can you ? Are you conceiving this being in detail, which would take an infinite mind, or are you simply accepting the concept, which is not quite the same thing ? Folk can accept all manner of things without looking into the detail of whether they can exist in reality or even in detail in the imagination. But again let's run with this vague, "I can sort of describe it so that's good enough" conception.

3. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the imagination

That use of the word "greater" again. What is "greater" about existing in reality rather than the imagination ? I reject that completely. At best it needs clarification.

4. Therefore the being of which I conceive must exist in reality

And that follows, I believe, from the muddled/missing definitions used earlier. And is why there is not an infinite number of Gods as I can imagine a new one each time I try. This is only a good argument for God if you ignore the weaknesses as it goes along.

By the way I don't accept we should state old philosophers talk a load of nonsense. That is just insulting to them. One needs to put things forward to discuss or one gets nowhere. It is with different generations/different mindsets we spot things they appeared not to at the time. For sure much of what is suggested will be found to be flawed but good for them for bringing it up for examination.


Going back to Jim's clarifications. I do not see this surprisingly compelling bit.
Bad enough we reach a point where the answer is that we don't know, so have to investigate both possibilities. Worse that one path immediately shows it would disprove a Deity by reason of the path assumption being that a prefect being can not exist. Possible existence surely can not equate to definite existence. It is surely that question we are exploring in the first place.

I think the Gödel page has assumptions that seem irrelevant at the start but prove to be relevant. I'm unsure I want to give myself a headache struggling through the symbolism stuff but:

The issue of fictional characters not believing in themselves ought not arise as they don't exist, so any belief in their beliefs are mere imagination. In any case there are mental conditions out there in the real world where some folk are convinced they are dead. Why not a fictional character who is convince they do not exist ? And the definition of God, that it encompasses all rationality but not all irrationality too, and one is simply going to dismiss a God who has both as it should ?

If one chooses a poor basis upon which to argue then the conclusions are suspect at best. Good for a classroom discussion, but creates no revelation.


If I can imagine something perfect then it must be real. Since, existence is a necessary condition for perfection. Why would anyone decide perfection needs existence ? Existing perfection requires existence, imagined perfection does not, I'm not even sure it needs thought, but that's a different discussion whether things not thought of can be considered to exist in the set of unthought thoughts.

And I apologise in advance for all the millions of typos that will suddenly appear as I push the Submit button.i

[Khandro]

OG;// Existing perfection requires existence, imagined perfection does not//

There is a view that the two are inseparable; we only know of the existence of external objects by inference, the mental images or reflections of an external object are indeed evidence of that object's existence, although we cannot know it directly, it its only real existence lies in our minds.

http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/maha/004-mind.htm

[jomifl]

The problem with most philosophical arguments is that they are never tested probably because nobod has the wit to test them. The clever bit is to devise arguments that can be tested ...that is what science sometimes succeeds in doing.