Anselm's Ontological Proof, Your thoughts?

[Dranu]

For this reason. If being “unlimited” is a property (which I grant it is) but not a perfection (which I do not grant that it is, at least under the Leibnizian definition), then we do not know that a GCB is unlimited simply by the fact of its being a GCB.

I do not see how you can deny that GCB is unlimited when all perfections are, as you admit, unlimited. In fact, the very possibility of GCB being limited allows me to think of a greater being, namely one that is unlimited.

Here is a simple presentation of why I think GCB is unlimited:
A.) GCB is limited (assumption for Reductio)
**1.) **All limitations imply a negation of substantiality/greatness.

Take note that:
a.)a limitation of a limit is just a double negation;and
b.)all things, insofar as they are different than ‘unlimited’ involve a limit
2.) For any limitation, it is conceivable to think of the same thing without negation
Note: for any ‘thing’ that inherently has limit, this simply means conceiving it without that limit, but that really just breaks the thing down to ‘Being itself’.
3.) Therefore, for GCB we can conceive of a greater being, or rather that being than which none greater can be conceived, a greater can be conceived (namely one without limits)​

“Unlimited” ought to qualify a property, indeed, to make it a perfection. Unlimited is certainly a property, but I’m not sure I’m willing to grant it perfection status under the Leibnizian definition.

Let’s leave what Leibniz said to the side for the sake of finding what really is the case.

All things (lets keep it on substantialities, not persons etc ) that are different are different because of differences in limits, otherwise there would be nothing to distinguish the two as everything (including identity, etc) one thing is the other is. Insofar as ‘perfection’ is different than ‘unlimited’ it suggests perfection is limited. Therefore, I conclude that they are one in the same as it would not be perfection for Being (or thing) to lack Beingness (thingness). In other words, it would not be perfection to lack something/anything. In fact I would conclude that Being, Unlimited/Infinite, Perfection, that Than which none greater can be conceived, etc. are all the exact same thing.

 

[Biff_Hooper]

Greetings all,

In post #60 Rob said: "The GCB is either a necessary non-existent or a necessary existent, depending on whether it is coherent or not.

I would restate it this way: If the idea of the GCB is meaningful (logically consistent and coherent), then it exists necessarily. If the idea of the GCB is not meaningful, then the GCB necessarily does not exist because it the very idea is impossible (i.e. akin to a round square).

This is what Anselm discovered. Either God exists or the very idea of God is impossible. And when you think about it, this is progress for it proves agnosticism and empirical atheism (as well as empirical theism) to be confused positions in the whole does God exist debate.

Once we get our thinking straight about God, either He exists necessarily or His existence is impossible. The debate is about meaning.

 

[Biff_Hooper]

The only two sensible positions to take in the God debate are theism and what Charles Hartshorne calls positivism, which denies that there is a meaningful concept of God.