|
29 Jan 2004, 14:50
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Anselm's argument
pretty old, but I thought I would throw it to the dogs. What is wrong with this then?
1) A being is God if and only if it is the greatest conceivable being.
2) Let's assume that atheism is correct, and that God only exists in thought, and not reality.
3) That which exists in both reality and thought is greater than existence in thought alone.
4) We can conceive of God's existence in both thought and reality.
5) Thus, we can conceive of a being greater than God.
6) We can conceive of a being greater than the greatest conceivable being.
7) The assumption that God only exists in thought leads to a contradiction, so it must be false.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 14:56
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Re: Anselm's argument
I dislike point 3
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 14:59
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,944
|
Re: Anselm's argument
oh and using that logic there must exist a perfect place, a perfect woman, a perfect spoon, etc
__________________
I find it kind of funny
I find it kind of sad
The dreams in which i'm dying
Are the best i've ever had
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 15:03
|
#4
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Anselm's argument
I never find anything like that particularly satisfying. It's what happens when Mathematicians hang around with philosophers too long.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 15:09
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Re: Anselm's argument
personally I like to define the greatest being as a being that can concieve a greater being than itself.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 15:09
|
#6
|
Henry Kelly
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,374
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Point 5 is bollocks if you're keeping point 1 in mind. Plus point 3 appears to have been plucked out of the air.
__________________
You're now playing ketchup
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 16:26
|
#7
|
King of The Fat Boys
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,332
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Just because you can conceive of something great doesn't mean that it actually exists.
A 12 year old could come up with a better argument than that for why God exists.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 16:31
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Anselm's argument
2) seems like an abuse of language, with a pretty horrible use of the word 'exist', 3) is meaningless, 4) is probably wrong, and in any case you cant 'logically' prove that something does or doesnt exist (lol zeno lol)
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 16:35
|
#9
|
Shai Halud
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sunny Leeds \o/
Posts: 2,127
|
Re: Anselm's argument
It's not called "Radical Edward's Argument", ffs.
Having said that, I was under the impression that the need for god was to fill the void left by a lack of inclination to apply logic to problems; so I find the use of logic to prove god exists to be somewhat perverse.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 18:09
|
#10
|
Ball
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,410
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Ooh, JonnyBGood said he understands this sort of thing!
And yeah they aren't meant to be persuasive as such. But they are fairly sound in that specific refutations are generally even less persuasive. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/on...l-arguments/#8
I'd go for #2 for the reasons idi and nod said. Things don't exist in thought; at most, models of them do.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 18:59
|
#11
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by queball
Ooh, JonnyBGood said he understands this sort of thing!
|
S'up?
Anyways the whole thing just falls down so fast. What you're conceiving of as god isn't actually god, it's just an appearance, as in what you concieve god to be. It's a platonic raping of language.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 19:03
|
#12
|
Ball
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,410
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
S'up?
Anyways the whole thing just falls down so fast. What you're conceiving of as god isn't actually god, it's just an appearance, as in what you concieve god to be. It's a platonic raping of language.
|
"platonic raping", nice.
Though variants on "idealism is gay" are hard arguments to sustain logically.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 19:07
|
#13
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Quote:
Originally Posted by queball
"platonic raping", nice.
Though variants on "idealism is gay" are hard arguments to sustain logically.
|
Well it's easy to "prove" things exist in reality. There it is, there it is, there it is. Idealism in itself is an assumption, and an unnecessary one at that. The fact that if you assume x,y and z a,b and c are true doesn't really mean much if there's no reason to assume x,y and z are true.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 19:14
|
#14
|
Blatantly overcooked
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,575
|
Re: Anselm's argument
If god can create it all and do everything, than can it make a rock so heavy that he cant lift?
See? Much faster and simpler.
__________________
Bizarrely overrated
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 19:15
|
#15
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Oh my god we're not doing that one again. Let's put it this way, if god operates outside the universe, and time, does your question still make sense?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 19:26
|
#16
|
Das Scoot
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 788
|
Re: Anselm's argument
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in that arguement that isn't a hole.
__________________
n00b since Jan 11th, 2001
I don't really know what I'm doing here
|
|
|
29 Jan 2004, 19:31
|
#17
|
cynic
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bishop Auckland Co. Durham
Posts: 8,809
|
Re: Anselm's argument
dont know about the rest, but in the case of number 2, it means that God only exists in the thoughts of its believers, not in reality. and if you keep that in mind then at least that point makes a little more sense.
__________________
lazy
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43.
| |